Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH RESEND] tftp: fix type of block arg to store_block
Hi Jayachandran C,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Jayachandran C jayachandranc@netlogicmicro.com wrote:
[Sending again, probably for the last time. This is a simple fix for an obvious issue, please merge if you are convinced :) ]
The block argument for store_block can be -1 when the tftp sequence number rolls over (i.e TftpBlock == 0), so the first argument to store_block has to be of type 'int' instead of 'unsigned'.
In our environment (gcc 4.4.5 mips toolchain), this causes incorrect 'offset' to be generated for storing the block, and the tftp block with number 0 will be written elsewhere, resulting in a bad block in the downloaded file and a memory corruption.
Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C jayachandranc@netlogicmicro.com
Something about your email is not being pulled into patchwork. Perhaps it hasn't made it past a list moderator?
Thanks, -Joe
Dear Joe,
In message CANr=Z=YAheDrCk=r5yZA8ig9FzAX+7gb86huCh5MNAr_Lroszg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Something about your email is not being pulled into patchwork. Perhaps it hasn't made it past a list moderator?
List moderation has nothing to do with that. Patchwork is just another e-mail address registered on the mailing list, so if you receive t through the list, PW will also receive it.
PW is known to have problems with messages that come in base64 encoded, which usually happens if "funny" characters are being used in the commit messages.
If you cannot find it in PW< then apply it from the ML directly.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi Wolfgang,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joe,
In message CANr=Z=YAheDrCk=r5yZA8ig9FzAX+7gb86huCh5MNAr_Lroszg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Something about your email is not being pulled into patchwork. Perhaps it hasn't made it past a list moderator?
List moderation has nothing to do with that. Patchwork is just another e-mail address registered on the mailing list, so if you receive t through the list, PW will also receive it.
I assumed that I received it because I was directly addressed, but perhaps noone on the mailing list (including PW) received it.
PW is known to have problems with messages that come in base64 encoded, which usually happens if "funny" characters are being used in the commit messages.
If you cannot find it in PW< then apply it from the ML directly.
Will do.
Thanks, -Joe
Dear Joe,
In message CANr=Z=bMO_vAPuXu_cperjMVwX=QDX_82W622zD7Ja3P=7Bs9w@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I assumed that I received it because I was directly addressed, but perhaps noone on the mailing list (including PW) received it.
A simple test is always to check if the message ID is known to gmane; in this case we have
Message-ID: 1341901134-7826-1-git-send-email-jayachandranc@netlogicmicro.com
Then try to open
http://mid.gmane.org/1341901134-7826-1-git-send-email-jayachandranc@netlogic...
Gmane doesn't know this message either, so obviously it really didn't go through the list, and I, too, receved it only because I'm in the To: list.
Jayachandran: I cannot find any trace of your message in our server logs either. It appears the mail from your netlogicmicro.com is routed through some boardcom.com mail servers. Are you sure the messages are really sent to the list?
N.B.: your SoB line:
Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C jayachandranc@netlogicmicro.com
is not acceptable. We need a full name instead of this 'C'.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Joe Hershberger -
Wolfgang Denk