Thanks, I pushed this.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:12:05AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Looks good, > > Ethan > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:33, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > An existing comment in the function being updated explains the problem: > > > > ? ?* Many of the sscanf calls in this function use oversized destination > > ? ?* fields because some sscanf() implementations truncate the range of %i > > ? ?* directives, so that e.g. "%"SCNi16 interprets input of "0xfedc" as a > > ? ?* value of 0x7fff. ?The other alternatives are to allow only a single > > ? ?* radix (e.g. decimal or hexadecimal) or to write more sophisticated > > ? ?* parsers. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
