From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16725 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 01:47:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16718 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 01:47:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 01:47:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12662; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:37:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020425.183739.112839866.davem@redhat.com> To: drow@mvista.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix bug report #508 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20020425211710.B6519@nevyn.them.org> References: <20020425120455.A7896@nevyn.them.org> <20020425.175951.106461842.davem@redhat.com> <20020425211710.B6519@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01063.txt.bz2 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400 On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 05:59:51PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > Wait... I was told that an alloca() length argument change > was anything but obvious. How is this any different? The code was reallocing with the number of elements in the array instead of the size of the array. That was obvious from my reading of the patch alone, and made sense with respect to the PR filed yesterday about this. If that's not "obvious", I don't know what is. Sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you personally, but rather was meant to point out double standards on "what is obvious" in general that occurs here.