From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudip Mukherjee Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Input: db9 - store object at correct index Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:14:28 +0530 Message-ID: <20151003054428.GB4428@sudip-pc> References: <1443785315-31495-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20151002181118.GI8437@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:36775 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751665AbbJCFoe (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2015 01:44:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151002181118.GI8437@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:11:18AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Sudip, > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 04:58:33PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > The variable i is used to check the port to attach to and we are > > supposed to save the reference of struct db9 in the location given by > > db9_base[i]. But after finding out the index i is getting modified again > > so we saved in a wrong index. > > > > Fixes: 2260c419b52b ("Input: db9 - use parallel port device model") > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > --- > > drivers/input/joystick/db9.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/input/joystick/db9.c b/drivers/input/joystick/db9.c > > index cf1f602..f6ecd4a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/input/joystick/db9.c > > +++ b/drivers/input/joystick/db9.c > > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ static void db9_attach(struct parport *pp) > > const struct db9_mode_data *db9_mode; > > struct pardevice *pd; > > struct input_dev *input_dev; > > - int i, j; > > + int i, j, k; > > int mode; > > struct pardev_cb db9_parport_cb; > > > > @@ -577,6 +577,7 @@ static void db9_attach(struct parport *pp) > > pr_debug("Not using parport%d.\n", pp->number); > > return; > > } > > + k = i; > > Hmm, I'd prefer we did not reuse 'i' at all. Can we instead of 'k' add > 'port_idx' and use it instead of 'i' in the first loop? Yes, that will be great. This reuse of i caused this mistake. Sorry about that I should have been more carefull. regards sudip