From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] wm8994: range checking issue
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:06:21 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100324140621.GI21571@bicker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100324125946.GA26453@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:59:46PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 03:01:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Smatch complained about BUG_ON(reg > WM8994_MAX_REGISTER) because the
> > actual number of elements in the array was WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE + 1.
>
> > I changed the BUG_ON() to return -EINVAL.
>
> Please don't introduce orthogonal changes like this in patches, it's bad
> practice and increases the chances of your patch being nacked.
>
> > I was confused why WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE was different from the actual
> > size of ->reg_cache and I was concerned because some places used
> > ARRAY_SIZE() to find the end of the array and other places used
> > WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE. In my patch, I made them the same.
>
> This is caused by confusion with the MAX_CACHED_REGISTER definition in
> the header. Best to use that one consistently, I guess - I've got a
> sneaking suspicion something has gone AWOL in the driver publication
> process.
Hm... That sounds more involved than I anticipated. I don't have the
hardware and don't feel comfortable making complicated changes if I
can't test them.
Can someone else take care of this.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] wm8994: range checking issue
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:06:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100324140621.GI21571@bicker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100324125946.GA26453@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:59:46PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 03:01:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Smatch complained about BUG_ON(reg > WM8994_MAX_REGISTER) because the
> > actual number of elements in the array was WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE + 1.
>
> > I changed the BUG_ON() to return -EINVAL.
>
> Please don't introduce orthogonal changes like this in patches, it's bad
> practice and increases the chances of your patch being nacked.
>
> > I was confused why WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE was different from the actual
> > size of ->reg_cache and I was concerned because some places used
> > ARRAY_SIZE() to find the end of the array and other places used
> > WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE. In my patch, I made them the same.
>
> This is caused by confusion with the MAX_CACHED_REGISTER definition in
> the header. Best to use that one consistently, I guess - I've got a
> sneaking suspicion something has gone AWOL in the driver publication
> process.
Hm... That sounds more involved than I anticipated. I don't have the
hardware and don't feel comfortable making complicated changes if I
can't test them.
Can someone else take care of this.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-24 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-24 12:01 [rfc patch] wm8994: range checking issue Dan Carpenter
2010-03-24 12:01 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-24 12:59 ` Mark Brown
2010-03-24 12:59 ` Mark Brown
2010-03-24 14:06 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2010-03-24 14:06 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-24 14:31 ` Mark Brown
2010-03-24 14:31 ` Mark Brown
2010-03-25 10:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-25 10:58 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100324140621.GI21571@bicker \
--to=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=jy0922.shim@samsung.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.