On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:55:35PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> I was curious about the "undefined". I found the text:
>
>The integer promotions are performed on each of the operands. The
>type of the result is that of the promoted left operand. If the
>value of the right
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:24:41PM +0200, Wojciech Kromer wrote:
>
> > Note that adding an explicit u32 cast avoids the problem even with a buggy
> > compiler:
> >
> > static inline u32 get_unaligned_le32(const u8 *p)
> > {
> > return (u32)p[0] | p[1] << 8 | p[2] << 16 | p[3] << 24;
> > }
> >
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 07:40:38PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
[...]
> > The "madd $3,$2" command here is incorrect - it performs sign
> > extension of its arguments; it should be "maddu $3,$2".
>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 02:09:22AM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> The usage of sign-extension might be cause. The problem is that all these
> variables are sector_t, which as far as I know, is a u64.
> Even if it was using signed variable, all of them are 64bit and using
> values much lo
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:11:15PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> False positive buffer overflow detected by gcc because altinfo uses
> information1, flashLayoutVer and fskernelCRC fields. We are sure, that
> altinfo length is less than ALTTAGINFO_LEN, so it's safe to memcpy()
> whole altinfo s
permissions 1777 by default, and these
permissions then persist in the created jffs2 at least until
subsequent sysupgrade. Mounting tmpfs with mode=0755 fixes the
permission problem.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov
---
package/base-files/files/lib/functions/boot.sh |2 +-
1 files changed, 1
Mount tmpfs for /dev with mode=0755 (the udev case was already handled
properly, but the hotplug2 case did not have this option).
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov
---
.../files/lib/preinit/20_device_fs_mount |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/package
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:09:36PM +0200, Frédéric Moulins wrote:
> Hello,
>
> maybe the following patch will interest you :
> http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2008-June/002609.html
>
> It allows to configure kernel modules parameters from uci config files.
Interesting. But is i
