Commited in the hope that Marco isn't angry with me ;)
and I noticed I used still past once and there was a reason for len = +1
and if < len not <= len
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 17:59 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 17:59 +0300 schrieb Vesa Jääskeläinen:
> > Felix
Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 17:59 +0300 schrieb Vesa Jääskeläinen:
>> Felix Zielcke wrote:
>>
>> sizeof returns type of size_t so it would be good that char k uses that.
>> I am a bit surprised that this didn't generate compiler warning?
>
> Well somewhere hidden in a mail
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 17:59 +0300 schrieb Vesa Jääskeläinen:
> Felix Zielcke wrote:
>
> sizeof returns type of size_t so it would be good that char k uses that.
> I am a bit surprised that this didn't generate compiler warning?
Well somewhere hidden in a mail from me, I think I already wr
Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 00:46 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
>
>> I'm too lazy now to make a new patch and go sleeping now.
>> [...]
>>
>> I hope that Marco could have a quick look over it especially the
>> changelog part :)
>
> Final patch attached.
> In changelog I had
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:46:11AM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>
> I'm now not that sure if that #define k would be okay, seems like Vesa
> isn't liking macros.
If you use macros, please give them meaningful names. But a macro just for
sizeof("foo") isn't much of an improvemtn, since the resulti
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 00:46 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> I'm too lazy now to make a new patch and go sleeping now.
> [...]
>
> I hope that Marco could have a quick look over it especially the
> changelog part :)
Final patch attached.
In changelog I had again past and present mixed and I
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 00:14 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 05:05:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > + unsigned char i, j, k, l;
>
> I think using unsigned chars to store "integers" is counter-intuitive, and in
> some cases possibly dangerous (overflow).
I should
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 05:05:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> + unsigned char i, j, k, l;
I think using unsigned chars to store "integers" is counter-intuitive, and in
some cases possibly dangerous (overflow).
> + grub_dev = xmalloc (strlen (os_dev) - strlen ("/dev/mapper/") + 1);
> +
Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 17:16 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Well attached is now the right one.
I want to bring the topic up again, so that this hopefully, so that this
hopefully won't get forgotten for a while again.
I have just noticed that we have a regression in our new debian
experiment
Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 17:05 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2008, 23:15 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> > So I made now the getroot.diff new without indenting the whole switch
> > block by 2 spaces.
>
> Thanks to Marco and Emacs, I know now that the `case' on `switch' i
Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2008, 23:15 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> So I made now the getroot.diff new without indenting the whole switch
> block by 2 spaces.
Thanks to Marco and Emacs, I know now that the `case' on `switch' is a
special case :)
GCS isn't talking about this and I just assumed on s
Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2008, 22:38 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> Okay, but please send the patch without indentation first, so your changes can
> be reviewed.
svn diff --diff-cmd diff -x -upw
That way it works, the attached getroot_w.diff is made with it.
But I think it doestn't look that go
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:32:04PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Try to ommit big indentation changes from the patch. If you change
> > something
> > that requires a big chunk of code to be reindented, I think it's better if
> > you
> > leave that out for readability (and mention so if you lik
Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2008, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>
> Please explain the actual changes (or what they're for).
As I wrote that, I just saw before that Marco did just Rewritten. in a
commit, but with searching for Rewritten in the ChangeLog reveals much
more verbose entrys
So:
200
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 07:34:05PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> 2008-08-14 Felix Zielcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * util/getroot.c: Include .
> (grub_util_get_grub_dev): Rewritten.
Please explain the actual changes (or what they're for).
>switch (grub_util_get_dev_abstracti
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 18:18 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
>
> Please comment this, please give me hints how to make it better.
> I don't like the code myself but it seems like we should handle this
> double dash problem :(
>
Now that a bit time has passed, I think it isn't that ugly.
But I s
Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Well attached is now my cute little asprintf patch with a very ugly LVM
> part.
>
> It works for
>
> volumegroup: linuxvg
> logicalvolume: lvol0
> /dev/mapper/linuxvg-lvol0
>
> volume group: m-y--vg
> logical volume: l-vol--0
> /dev/mapper/m--yvg-l--vol0
>
>
> Pl
I still can't see any use in this `escape a dash with a dash because we
use a dash to seperate the vg part from the lv one' from LVM.
As I already wrote, grub-probe works fine if you remove that double
escaping from the file name and remount it.
LVM (lv* vg* commands) shouldn't use the filename to
18 matches
Mail list logo
