From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gravity.yadt.uk (gravity.yadt.uk [IPv6:2a04:ad80:1:1a8::a495]) by passt.top (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A25785A004F for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:42:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yadt.co.uk; s=yadtcouk-202002; t=1720784577; bh=ba6SHwjrhju7EhRXHVl1VqOGwNyx4OO51Wff0KYl+q8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=H5qcGMrPAbLZoaMT6rn+qPBbIuiXj60MNtmYqQyj+0scrT5bYPvUtZidXqF7cxpdF An69Kv7Nh2uMW5MyNfaEjaKKHGKnLHK9pTqTM6sgUwxDNyFm4OwlZbjbniwRHSg8bl mXuF6OtwE8OFr4NJujCfTA2ghwAnYTpzcEHKVTh30CO931jib+0fBdCW0u1euVAzn5 jdIeXLyHzhAK4Wg+S1oiA+EvT0AGtq815X4NzyYN6q/QGJ5jTtkyFcsO2W6cDk2Ta3 MnsDeZfHjhXuX8K90TKF21w/JSo9ueLAk5Kz9SpRbsuknFikyzrizWadiWT6JmjKpE anvXwbpq+ieBA== Received: by gravity.yadt.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4WL8q5393Pz5rjb; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:42:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:42:57 +0100 From: David Taylor To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] doc: Add program to document and test assumptions about SO_REUSEADDR Message-ID: References: <20240705104409.3847002-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20240705104409.3847002-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240705104409.3847002-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) X-MailFrom: davidt@yadt.co.uk X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: nonmember-moderation X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation Message-ID-Hash: QLSJYMXMVQ2UC3XPALKZNG5ZPGKQ3F5X X-Message-ID-Hash: QLSJYMXMVQ2UC3XPALKZNG5ZPGKQ3F5X X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:02:25 +0200 CC: passt-dev@passt.top, Stefano Brivio X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.8 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion and patches for passt Archived-At: Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, 05 Jul 2024, David Gibson wrote: I may be missing something subtle, but is j intended to be used twice here, rather than k? >+ >+static void check_all_orders(void) >+{ >+ int norders = sizeof(orders) / sizeof(orders[0]); >+ int i, j, k, l; >+ >+ for (i = 0; i < norders; i++) >+ for (j = 0; j < norders; j++) >+ for (k = 0; k < norders; k++) >+ for (l = 0; l < norders; l++) >+ check_one_order(orders[i], orders[j], >+ orders[j], orders[l]); --------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^ >+} -- David Taylor