From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:59:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [rfc patch] wm8994: range checking issue Message-Id: <20100324125946.GA26453@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> List-Id: References: <20100324120107.GH21571@bicker> In-Reply-To: <20100324120107.GH21571@bicker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dan Carpenter , Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Joonyoung Shim , alsa- 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.