Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: Linux v2.6.13-rc3 | Date | Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:18:54 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 07:05, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, > it's _really_ -rc3 this time, never mind the confusion with the commit > message last time (when the Makefile clearly said -rc2, but my over-eager > fingers had typed in a commit message saying -rc3). > > There's a bit more changes here than I would like, but I'm putting my foot > down now. Not only are a lot of people going to be gone next week for LKS > and OLS, but we've gotten enough stuff for 2.6.13, and we need to calm > down. > > Admittedly the diff looks a bit bigger than it really conceptually is, > partly due to the hwmon drivers moving around, partly due to re-indenting > reiserfs. No real changes, but huge diffs in both cases.
Hi Linus,
I get several warnings like the one below when building with gcc4.0.
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c: In function 'ip_conntrack_in': net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c:612: warning: 'set_reply' may be used uninitialized in this function
The trivial patch below fixes it:
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <petkov@uni-muenster.de>
--- net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c.orig 2005-07-17 13:14:21.000000000 +0200 +++ net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c 2005-07-17 13:14:57.000000000 +0200 @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ unsigned int ip_conntrack_in(unsigned in struct ip_conntrack *ct; enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo; struct ip_conntrack_protocol *proto; - int set_reply; + int set_reply = 0; int ret; /* Previously seen (loopback or untracked)? Ignore. */
However, being so trivial, is it at all worth it fixing them or should I just ignore them? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |