On Wednesday 13 July 2005 07:05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes,
> it's _really_ -rc3 this time, never mind the confusion with the commit
> message last time (when the Makefile clearly said -rc2, but my over-eager
> fingers had typed in a commit message saying -rc3).
>
> There's a bit more changes here than I would like, but I'm putting my foot
> down now. Not only are a lot of people going to be gone next week for LKS
> and OLS, but we've gotten enough stuff for 2.6.13, and we need to calm
> down.
>
> Admittedly the diff looks a bit bigger than it really conceptually is,
> partly due to the hwmon drivers moving around, partly due to re-indenting
> reiserfs. No real changes, but huge diffs in both cases.
Hi Linus,
I get several warnings like the one below when building with gcc4.0.
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c: In function 'ip_conntrack_in':
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c:612: warning: 'set_reply' may be used
uninitialized in this function
The trivial patch below fixes it:
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c.orig 2005-07-17 13:14:21.000000000
+0200
+++ net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c 2005-07-17 13:14:57.000000000
+0200
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ unsigned int ip_conntrack_in(unsigned in
struct ip_conntrack *ct;
enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
struct ip_conntrack_protocol *proto;
- int set_reply;
+ int set_reply = 0;
int ret;
/* Previously seen (loopback or untracked)? Ignore. */
However, being so trivial, is it at all worth it fixing them or should I just
ignore them?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
