On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Mintz, Yuval <yuval.mi...@cavium.com> wrote:
>> > For the most part - I'm almost all in favor of this change.
>> > But just to make it clear - the actual fix could have been a one-liner,
>> > right?
>> > The rest are style changes.
>
>> Correct. Having the correct length in the memset is a sufficient fix for the
>> warning,
>> but it felt wrong to send it since the root of the problem seems to be the
>> complexity of the code that was hiding it.
>
> ...
>
>> Generally speaking, feel free to treat any of my compile-time warning fix
>> patches as simple bug reports and apply a different fix that seems more
>> appropriate. I mainly send it in patch form since that seems to be the
>> quickest way to address any issues.
>
> Sure.
>
> Once net-next is re-opened I intend to push our next FW version which
> is also going to change some of the aRFS related configurations.
>
> So I think we should stick to the single-liner fix for now,
> and I'll revise the style [if still needed; I'll have to check] on that
> submission.
Sounds good, thanks!
Arnd
