* [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-18 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
break. I changed it to int.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/scan.c b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
index 0ea390f..1361d8d 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
/* get & parse master ports */
for (i = 0; i < ports[0]; i++) {
- u32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
+ int mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
if (mst_port_d < 0)
return -EILSEQ;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-18 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
break. I changed it to int.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/scan.c b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
index 0ea390f..1361d8d 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
/* get & parse master ports */
for (i = 0; i < ports[0]; i++) {
- u32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
+ int mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
if (mst_port_d < 0)
return -EILSEQ;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-20 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
<error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
> break. I changed it to int.
In declaration we use s32:
static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-20 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
<error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
> break. I changed it to int.
In declaration we use s32:
static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
@ 2011-08-20 12:59 ` walter harms
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: walter harms @ 2011-08-20 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki
Cc: Dan Carpenter, open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>> break. I changed it to int.
>
> In declaration we use s32:
> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>
> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>
aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
re,
wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-20 12:59 ` walter harms
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: walter harms @ 2011-08-20 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki
Cc: Dan Carpenter, open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>> break. I changed it to int.
>
> In declaration we use s32:
> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>
> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>
aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
re,
wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-20 12:59 ` walter harms
@ 2011-08-20 13:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wharms; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 20 sierpnia 2011 14:59 użytkownik walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> napisał:
>
>
> Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>>> break. I changed it to int.
>>
>> In declaration we use s32:
>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>
>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>
>
> aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
Will you care to replace function return type as well?
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-20 13:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wharms; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 20 sierpnia 2011 14:59 użytkownik walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> napisał:
>
>
> Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>>> break. I changed it to int.
>>
>> In declaration we use s32:
>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>
>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>
>
> aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
Will you care to replace function return type as well?
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
@ 2011-08-23 19:13 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-23 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> > The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
> > break. I changed it to int.
>
> In declaration we use s32:
> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>
> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>
I don't know. I think I'm going to trust the original author on this
one. I'll send you a v2 that uses s32.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-23 19:13 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-23 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> > The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
> > break. I changed it to int.
>
> In declaration we use s32:
> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>
> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>
I don't know. I think I'm going to trust the original author on this
one. I'll send you a v2 that uses s32.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-23 19:13 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2011-08-24 10:01 ` Rafał Miłecki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-24 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 23 sierpnia 2011 21:13 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
<error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>> > The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>> > break. I changed it to int.
>>
>> In declaration we use s32:
>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>
>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>
>
> I don't know. I think I'm going to trust the original author on this
> one. I'll send you a v2 that uses s32.
Dan, I asked you to use int in both: call and function declaration.
I'm the author of that code, and I don't have anything against
modifying that :)
I think int is used much more often that s32 for errors.
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-24 10:01 ` Rafał Miłecki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-24 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
W dniu 23 sierpnia 2011 21:13 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
<error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>> > The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>> > break. I changed it to int.
>>
>> In declaration we use s32:
>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>
>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>
>
> I don't know. I think I'm going to trust the original author on this
> one. I'll send you a v2 that uses s32.
Dan, I asked you to use int in both: call and function declaration.
I'm the author of that code, and I don't have anything against
modifying that :)
I think int is used much more often that s32 for errors.
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-24 10:01 ` Rafał Miłecki
@ 2011-08-24 10:17 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-24 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:01:11PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Dan, I asked you to use int in both: call and function declaration.
> I'm the author of that code, and I don't have anything against
> modifying that :)
>
> I think int is used much more often that s32 for errors.
>
No problem. Should I make bcma_erom_get_mst_port() return 0 on
success while I'm at it?
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-24 10:17 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-24 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:01:11PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Dan, I asked you to use int in both: call and function declaration.
> I'm the author of that code, and I don't have anything against
> modifying that :)
>
> I think int is used much more often that s32 for errors.
>
No problem. Should I make bcma_erom_get_mst_port() return 0 on
success while I'm at it?
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [patch -next v2] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
@ 2011-08-23 19:15 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-23 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
break. I changed it to s32 to match how bcma_erom_get_mst_port() is
declared.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
---
v2: the first version used "int" instead of "s32".
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/scan.c b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
index 0ea390f..cad9948 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
/* get & parse master ports */
for (i = 0; i < ports[0]; i++) {
- u32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
+ s32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
if (mst_port_d < 0)
return -EILSEQ;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [patch -next v2] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
@ 2011-08-23 19:15 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2011-08-23 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki; +Cc: open list:BROADCOM SPECIFIC..., kernel-janitors
The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
break. I changed it to s32 to match how bcma_erom_get_mst_port() is
declared.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
---
v2: the first version used "int" instead of "s32".
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/scan.c b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
index 0ea390f..cad9948 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
/* get & parse master ports */
for (i = 0; i < ports[0]; i++) {
- u32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
+ s32 mst_port_d = bcma_erom_get_mst_port(bus, eromptr);
if (mst_port_d < 0)
return -EILSEQ;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
(?)
(?)
@ 2011-08-20 14:11 ` walter harms
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: walter harms @ 2011-08-20 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
Am 20.08.2011 15:31, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
> W dniu 20 sierpnia 2011 14:59 użytkownik walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> napisał:
>>
>>
>> Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>>>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>>>> break. I changed it to int.
>>>
>>> In declaration we use s32:
>>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>>
>>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>>
>>
>> aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
>
> Will you care to replace function return type as well?
>
not me, i would have to download a decent kernel etc, just to change
an s32 into int.
re,
wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()
2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
(?)
@ 2011-08-20 14:17 ` Rafał Miłecki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2011-08-20 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
W dniu 20 sierpnia 2011 16:11 użytkownik walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> napisał:
>
>
> Am 20.08.2011 15:31, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>> W dniu 20 sierpnia 2011 14:59 użytkownik walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> napisał:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>>>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>>>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>>>>> The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>>>>> break. I changed it to int.
>>>>
>>>> In declaration we use s32:
>>>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>>>
>>>
>>> aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.
>>
>> Will you care to replace function return type as well?
>>
>
> not me, i would have to download a decent kernel etc, just to change
> an s32 into int.
Ups, sorry, replied too fast without checking the person I ask for.
Dan: can you change the function as well?
--
Rafał
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-24 10:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-08-18 13:38 [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core() Dan Carpenter
2011-08-18 13:38 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-20 12:23 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-20 12:59 ` walter harms
2011-08-20 12:59 ` walter harms
2011-08-20 13:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-20 13:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-23 19:13 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-23 19:13 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-24 10:01 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-24 10:01 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-24 10:17 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-24 10:17 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-23 19:15 ` [patch -next v2] " Dan Carpenter
2011-08-23 19:15 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-08-20 14:11 ` [patch -next] " walter harms
2011-08-20 14:17 ` Rafał Miłecki
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.