From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix cpufreq_update_policy Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:12:30 -0500 Sender: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <200401281712.30477.dtor_core@ameritech.net> References: <20040128215249.GA4727@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040128215249.GA4727@dominikbrodowski.de> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: davej@redhat.com, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Wednesday 28 January 2004 04:52 pm, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Fix a brown paper bug in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c which accessed > random memory instead of the correct struct. > > Please apply, > > diff -ruN linux-original/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > linux/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c --- > linux-original/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2004-01-16 20:30:59.000000000 > +0100 +++ linux/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2004-01-28 22:16:38.099398456 > +0100 @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ > down(&data->lock); > > memcpy(&policy, > - &data, > + data, > sizeof(struct cpufreq_policy)); > policy.min = data->user_policy.min; > policy.max = data->user_policy.max; Why not change it to: policy = *data; ? -- Dmitry