On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:10:27 +0200
Mario Kleiner wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> >> I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after
> >> adding
> >> and removing fields a few t
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:10:27 +0200
Mario Kleiner wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> >> I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after
> >> adding
> >> and removing fields a few t
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
>> I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after
>> adding
>> and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for
>> padding. The
>> end result is that c
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after
adding
and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for
padding. The
end result is that clients today won't
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after adding
> and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for padding. The
> end result is that clients today won't receive the sbc_lo field at all,
> and so will like
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after adding
> and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for padding. The
> end result is that clients today won't receive the sbc_lo field at all,
> and so will like
I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after adding
and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for padding. The
end result is that clients today won't receive the sbc_lo field at all,
and so will likely stuff junk into that field on the client side (or
zero at best
I obviously failed to count the swap event structure size after adding
and removing fields a few times, and didn't even account for padding. The
end result is that clients today won't receive the sbc_lo field at all,
and so will likely stuff junk into that field on the client side (or
zero at best
