>>Hi,
>>if an unsupported family is used, the code might do null pointer dereference
>>in m !=0 case (th isn't initialized in that case in the switch(family) code).
>>Is it really as it seems or do I miss something ? Futhermore, the code
>>"pasifies gcc" by setting ip, ip6 & th to NULL - that is just bogus, it leads
>>to NULL pointer dereference later. It should return EAFNOTSUPPORT in that
>>case IMHO.
>>IMHO the code should be changed as in the following patch. Is it correct
>>or did I overlook something obvious ?
>	I agree with first part of your change.  second and third part of
>	your change is, I believe, unnecessary (or cosmetic).
>	I'll bring in your change into repository.  Thanks.

	I looked further and the first part is also cosmetic.  It was based on
	some change request with mips gcc, where picky warning compiler is
	turned on, and gcc raises *incorrect* warning (and exits with error
	since we do -Werror).

itojun