This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.
Best regards.
Coly
diff --git a/debugfs/set_fields.c b/debugfs/set_fields.c
index b50ff7c..ce0301f 100644
--- a/debugfs/set_fields.c
+++ b/debugfs/set_fields.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <string.h>
+#include <strings.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
diff --git a/lib/blkid/probe.c b/lib/blkid/probe.c
index 69a43b0..c8fffa1 100644
--- a/lib/blkid/probe.c
+++ b/lib/blkid/probe.c
@@ -585,8 +585,8 @@ static int probe_luks(struct blkid_probe *probe,
unsigned char uuid[40];
/* 168 is the offset to the 40 character uuid:
* http://luks.endorphin.org/LUKS-on-disk-format.pdf */
- strncpy(uuid, buf+168, 40);
- blkid_set_tag(probe->dev, "UUID", uuid, sizeof(uuid));
+ strncpy((char *)uuid, (const char *)(buf+168), 40);
+ blkid_set_tag(probe->dev, "UUID", (const char *)uuid, sizeof(uuid));
return 0;
}
diff --git a/misc/badblocks.c b/misc/badblocks.c
index 88c5a74..29c5a5c 100644
--- a/misc/badblocks.c
+++ b/misc/badblocks.c
@@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ int main (int argc, char ** argv)
}
} else from_count = 0;
if (from_count >= last_block) {
- com_err (program_name, 0, _("invalid starting block (%d):
must be less than %lu"),
+ com_err (program_name, 0, _("invalid starting block (%lu):
must be less than %lu"),
(unsigned long) from_count, (unsigned long)
last_block);
exit (1);
}
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.
In the future, can you please include a "Signed-off-by" with your
patches? This patch is simple enough that I'll apply it without it,
but for anything non-trivial I won't apply it without a DCO.
Thanks, regards,
- Ted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Theodore,
Do you mean "Signed-off-by Coly Li <[email protected]>" ?
I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-) Should I add this to
the patch this time ?
Thanks
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.
>
> In the future, can you please include a "Signed-off-by" with your
> patches? This patch is simple enough that I'll apply it without it,
> but for anything non-trivial I won't apply it without a DCO.
>
> Thanks, regards,
>
> - Ted
>
>
- --
Coly Li
SuSE PRC Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtBeiuTp8cyZ5lTERAiwPAKCyoew5Y/20UghUsDkhYE2gJ9+1LwCeIyhI
wweynOLUgWP/9xHYqThk1i0=
=NfDi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>Do you mean "Signed-off-by Coly Li <[email protected]>" ?
>I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-) Should I add this
>to the patch this time ?
Oh, I find this patch is applied already. Thanks for noting Signed-off-by :-)
Coly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtCL5uTp8cyZ5lTERAgsBAKCfv1un8o+lnBxhkGSUI2bWl3xzsACfUE55
x5BQBf6ZTxtWksbjrmxxTNk=
=P9Ex
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 02:07:30PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>
> Do you mean "Signed-off-by Coly Li <[email protected]>" ?
> I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-)
No, it's really bad to add a Signed-off-by for anyone other than
yourself, since it has legal significance. It's something that you
have to do for yourself. :-)
Quoting from SUBMITTING-PATCHES:
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 a 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 <[email protected]>
In this case of your gcc -Wall cleanups, the changes involved were
small and probably fell below the threshold of something that could be
protected by copyright --- and I ended up choosing a different way of
cleaning up for one or two of the cleanups anyway. But for anything
non-trivial, these days I am requested a Developers Certification of
Origin.
Regards,
- Ted
clear, this is a perfect explaining for Signed-off-by :-)
Thanks a lot.
Coly
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 02:07:30PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> Do you mean "Signed-off-by Coly Li <[email protected]>" ?
>> I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-)
>
> No, it's really bad to add a Signed-off-by for anyone other than
> yourself, since it has legal significance. It's something that you
> have to do for yourself. :-)
>
> Quoting from SUBMITTING-PATCHES:
>
> 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 a 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 <[email protected]>
>
> In this case of your gcc -Wall cleanups, the changes involved were
> small and probably fell below the threshold of something that could be
> protected by copyright --- and I ended up choosing a different way of
> cleaning up for one or two of the cleanups anyway. But for anything
> non-trivial, these days I am requested a Developers Certification of
> Origin.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Ted
>