From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LMPT0-0005nz-Au
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:16:42 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LMPSy-0005k8-5u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:16:41 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58432 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LMPSy-0005jn-0k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:16:40 -0500
Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com ([209.85.218.12]:39728)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1LMPSx-00055x-NU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:16:39 -0500
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so21397607bwz.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580901120805g23d535a1pabb059cf7f9571ed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:05:20 +0200
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fix 64 bit issue in slirp
In-Reply-To: <20090112150643.GP3267@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20090112142807.GN3267@redhat.com>
	<f43fc5580901120654g5c808d1dn38167162f8512944@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090112150643.GP3267@redhat.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 1/12/09, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote:
>  > On 1/12/09, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
>  >
>  > Great, but did you really fix all pointer accesses, including the port
>  > number stuff?
>  >
>
> All that I found obviously :) And yes the one you are talking about is
>  fixed. Look at "struct mbuf_ptr"

Excellent! The patch passes my tests. I'll apply it unless there are objections.

This also means that we can finally get rid of the last warnings.