Syslinux - Feb 2015 - Use z size specifier for printf-ing size_t variable

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 06:13:13PM -0200, Raphael S Carvalho
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Martin Str|mberg <ams at
ludd.ltu.se> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Use the z size specifier to printf-ing size_t variables to get rid of
gcc
> > warning
> > format ?%08x? expects type ?unsigned int?, but argument 2 has type
?long unsigned int?
> Please, add the signed-off line.
I'm not sure what you want me to do. Should I resend the patch with a
signed-off line?


-- 
MartinS

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Martin Str|mberg <ams at ludd.ltu.se>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 06:13:13PM -0200, Raphael S Carvalho wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Martin Str|mberg <ams at
ludd.ltu.se> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > Use the z size specifier to printf-ing size_t variables to get rid
of gcc
>> > warning
>> > format ?%08x? expects type ?unsigned int?, but argument 2 has type
?long unsigned int?
>> Please, add the signed-off line.
>
> I'm not sure what you want me to do. Should I resend the patch with a
> signed-off line?
Basically yes, and if you want your patch to be applied.

Follow an explanation on why it's important:

"12) Sign your work

To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
patches that are being emailed around.

The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
can certify the below:

        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
            indicated in the file; or

        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
            in the file; or

        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
            it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
   are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
   personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
   maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
   this project or the open source license(s) involved.

then you just add a line saying

Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random at developer.example.org>"

Source: /doc/SubmittingPatches
>
>
> --
> MartinS


-- 
Raphael S. Carvalho

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Martin Str|mberg <ams at ludd.ltu.se>
wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 06:13:13PM -0200, Raphael S Carvalho wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Martin Str|mberg <ams at
ludd.ltu.se> wrote:
> >> > Hello.
> >> >
> >> > Use the z size specifier to printf-ing size_t variables to
get rid of gcc
> >> > warning
> >> > format ?%08x? expects type ?unsigned int?, but argument 2 has
type ?long unsigned int?
> >> Please, add the signed-off line.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you want me to do. Should I resend the patch
with a
> > signed-off line?
> Basically yes, and if you want your patch to be applied.
> 
> Follow an explanation on why it's important:
> 
> "12) Sign your work
 
 (snip) 
 
> then you just add a line saying
> 
> Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random at
developer.example.org>"
> 
> Source: /doc/SubmittingPatches
> >
> >
> > --
> > MartinS
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Raphael S. Carvalho
> 
 
Generally speaking, adequate patches are helpful and desired, and there 
have been cases in which patches have been rejected or inapplicable 
because of inadequate formatting or lack of some information. But, in 
this particular case, AFAIK the patch in question was already applied 
so I would tend to think that there is no need to resend it.

Additional patches are very welcome :), and if they are "fully 
compliant", even better.

Regards,
Ady.
 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux