Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:03:48 +0200 From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: cpio write(2) return value checks Yes, I know.. but in this way in future work may prove more difficult. Owl has a very high quality code, and need to take care of it in all areas. I could not understand why this change something that has already been changed. daniel 2011/9/16 Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>: > Daniel, > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 18:39 +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: >> --- cpio-2.10.90.old/src/copyin.c.orig 2011-09-15 06:03:13.645164165 +0000 >> +++ cpio-2.10.90/src/copyin.c.orig 2011-09-15 06:03:21.775176098 +0000 > [...] >> --- cpio/src/copyin.c >> +++ cpio/src/copyin.c >> @@ -373,12 +373,12 @@ create_final_defers () > > copyin.c.orig is just a garbage. It's not a bug, however, thanks for noticing :-) > > -- > Vasiliy >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.