On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:40:12PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Ah yes, I accidentally fat-fingered the git add -p when splitting up the NSS
> patch into bite size pieces. Sorry about that. The attached v2 has the error
> declaration.
Thanks for updatng the patch. Applied.
--
Michael
signa
> On 31 Oct 2020, at 02:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that you are just missing to declare a new error number
> in px.h, so I would suggest to just use -19.
Ah yes, I accidentally fat-fingered the git add -p when splitting up the NSS
patch into bite size pieces. Sorry about that. T
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:23:27PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2020, at 16:54, Georgios Kokolatos
> > wrote:
>
> > I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
>
> I assume you mean s/failing/passing/? I noticed the red Travis and Appveyor
> runs, will fix o
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 16:54, Georgios Kokolatos
> wrote:
> I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
I assume you mean s/failing/passing/? I noticed the red Travis and Appveyor
runs, will fix over the weekend. Thanks for the heads-up.
cheers ./daniel
Hi,
thank you for your contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
Cheers,
//Georgios
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/daniel-gustafsson.html
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:26:54PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached introduce PXE_ENCRYPT_FAILED and use that for EVP_EncryptUpdate
> to
> ideally be slightly clearer in case of errors. Any reason not to do that
> instead of using ERR_GENERIC?
+1. While looking at that, I was wond
