Roland McGrath <rol...@hack.frob.com> wrote: > That looks fine. > > > * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fstatvfs.c (fstatvfs): > > Pass fd to __internal_statvfs instead of calling fstat64. > > * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fstatvfs64.c (__fstatvfs64): > > Pass fd to __internal_statvfs64 instead of calling fstat64. > > In a case like this, it's usual practice to write just "Likewise." > for the second one. But that's not mandatory.
Ah, I considered "Likewise." but figured maybe the difference between "__internal_statvfs64" and "__internal_statvfs" might be significant (even though it's really the same function) > Ideally there should be a bugzilla item filed for this issue. > Even though it's not really user-visible per se (for user-visible changes > we have a hard rule requiring bugzilla filings), a change that is being > tracked by downstream bug reports and such is easier for everyone to > keep track of if there is a BZ# to go with it. If you file one, > use [BZ #nnn] in the log entry as you see done elsewhere in ChangeLog. I'm not fan of signing into websites or filling out <form> elements, so I am hoping to avoid that. I haven't looked too closely at BZ, maybe there's an email/command-line interface like Debian BTS? > Do you have copyright papers on file with the FSF? I don't see a record > for you. No. I consider this a trivial change, so I hope I don't have to. > Do you want someone to commit this for you? If you think it likely you'll > post more changes in the future, then we encourage you to get set up to do > your own commits (on specific approval, of course). The details are on > the wiki. I would like somebody to commit this for me, I don't expect more changes. It took me many, many years of using glibc to find my first minor issue with it :)
