From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 1 (netfilter) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20140406.113106.564835222660199498.davem@davemloft.net> References: <533B06A7.5010900@infradead.org> <20140401.152203.847120817141929645.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rdunlap@infradead.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: geert@linux-m68k.org Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:43835 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754340AbaDFP3d (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Apr 2014 11:29:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:50:04 +0200 > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:22 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap >> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:34:15 -0700 >> >>> on x86_64: >>> >>> net/netfilter/xt_connlimit.c: In function 'connlimit_mt_check': >>> net/netfilter/xt_connlimit.c:380:18: warning: division by zero [-Wdiv-by-zero] >>> >>> Maybe just use CONNLIMIT_LOCK_SLOTS instead of ARRAY_SIZE(...). >> >> I'd rather see that ARRAY_SIZE() be adjusted to work cleanly for zero >> sized array elements. > > Anyone with a suggestion? > > Please note this is now in Linus' tree, possibly crashing people's boxes... I took in the version of the fix I didn't like via Pablo for now.