On 12/03/2017 18:49, Dan Bugnar wrote:
> I couldn't find a good reason for using the sizeof() here, also I
> worked on a resize feature. I will send my work after this patch
> situation is clarified.
>
can you send the resize patch series you have ? i'd like to try the
whole set.
John
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:57 PM, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/17 11:06, Dan Bugnar wrote:
>>>
>>> The next message needs to be written after the data of current message.
>>> This was adding "sizeof(struct log_head)" bytes between messages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Bugnar <danut...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> log/syslog.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/log/syslog.c b/log/syslog.c
>>> index ac4f1ae..856fa60 100644
>>> --- a/log/syslog.c
>>> +++ b/log/syslog.c
>>> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static regex_t pat_tstamp;
>>> static struct log_head*
>>> log_next(struct log_head *h, int size)
>>> {
>>> - struct log_head *n = (struct log_head *)
>>> &h->data[PAD(sizeof(struct log_head) + size)];
>>> + struct log_head *n = (struct log_head *) &h->data[PAD(size)];
>>> return (n >= log_end) ? (log) : (n);
>>> }
>>
>> I think this was related to the resize feature of the log wrapping code. i
>> need to dig into old memories. but i am sure that there was a reason for the
>> sizeof()
>>
>> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
