From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:30:27 -0500 Message-ID: <1164983427.3562.36.camel@localhost> References: <1164972613.3562.7.camel@localhost> <20061201124903.GE8693@postel.suug.ch> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.225]:60331 "EHLO nz-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759293AbWLAOah (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:30:37 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id s1so1543059nze for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:30:36 -0800 (PST) To: Thomas Graf In-Reply-To: <20061201124903.GE8693@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Shall i assume that the patch showed up fine i.e no crap like mime? I still didnt get an echo back, did it make the list? On Fri, 2006-01-12 at 13:49 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > I can't see why this should be required. genl_register_ops() > enforces a unique command id > and genl_ops->cmd is u8 so there is no way to register more than > 256 commands anyway. By mistake during the tutorial, i had the id at something like 321. It registered fine but then listing the command showed it with a different id than what i thought it should be. I think it chops off all the bystes other than the LS one - which is not a good error check. The compiler will whine actually. If you ignore it (perhaps not seeing the warning in a mass compile) it registers just fine. cheers, jamal