On 09.02.2016 17:31, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Huth, on Tue 09 Feb 2016 17:14:15 +0100, wrote:
>>> + return (a.s6_addr[prefix_len / 8] >> (8 - (prefix_len % 8)))
>>> + == (b.s6_addr[prefix_len / 8] >> (8 - (prefix_len % 8)));
>>
>> checkpatch.pl complains here:
>>
>> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
>
> This is a false positive, there are no outer parentheses here.
Ah, you're right, of course, I haven't looked closely enough, sorry.
Maybe checkpatch.pl could also be silenced by putting the "==" at the
end of the first line instead?
>>> +static void icmp6_send_echoreply(struct mbuf *m, Slirp *slirp, struct ip6
>>> *ip,
>>> + struct icmp6 *icmp)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mbuf *t = m_get(slirp);
>>> + t->m_len = sizeof(struct ip6) + ntohs(ip->ip_pl);
>>> + memcpy(t->m_data, m->m_data, t->m_len);
>>> +
>>> + /* IPv6 Packet */
>>> + struct ip6 *rip = mtod(t, struct ip6 *);
>>
>> Not sure how strictly this is handled in QEMU, but for proper portable
>> C, variables should be declared at the beginning of a scope, as far as I
>> know.
>
> AIUI, qemu requires C99, doesn't it?
Ok, you're right again, this is even declared in the HACKING file of
QEMU, so this should be fine, I think.
Thomas
