From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cr: uts: don't pass an unsigned var as a signed int Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:20:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20090619203719.GA30093@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090619203719.GA30093-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Fri\, 19 Jun 2009 15\:37\:19 -0500") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org "Serge E. Hallyn" writes: > Else my checkpoing image gets reeeaallly huge. Just passing the > result of sizeof() however does the right thing. > > Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn > --- > checkpoint/namespace.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/checkpoint/namespace.c b/checkpoint/namespace.c > index 5726acb..8206aee 100644 > --- a/checkpoint/namespace.c > +++ b/checkpoint/namespace.c > @@ -46,22 +46,22 @@ static int do_checkpoint_uts_ns(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, > return ret; > > down_read(&uts_sem); > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->sysname, h->sysname_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->sysname, sizeof(name->sysname)); > if (ret < 0) > goto up; > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->nodename, h->nodename_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->nodename, sizeof(name->nodename)); > if (ret < 0) > goto up; > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->release, h->release_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->release, sizeof(name->release)); > if (ret < 0) > goto up; > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->version, h->version_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->version, sizeof(name->version)); > if (ret < 0) > goto up; > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->machine, h->machine_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->machine, sizeof(name->machine)); > if (ret < 0) > goto up; > - ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->domainname, h->domainname_len); > + ret = ckpt_write_string(ctx, name->domainname, sizeof(name->domainname)); > up: > up_read(&uts_sem); > return ret; So, getting back to the actual patch, this change seems fine -- just the commit subject and message should be updated, yes?