From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752661AbcEKTDg (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2016 15:03:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:36066 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751651AbcEKTDf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2016 15:03:35 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: atmel: potential underflow in atmel_set_freq() From: Kalle Valo In-Reply-To: <20160510192117.GC30712@mwanda> To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Simon Kelley , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <20160511190334.5797D61322@smtp.codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dan Carpenter wrote: > Smatch complains that we cap the upper bound of "fwrq->m" but not the > lower bound. I don't know if it can actually happen but it's simple > enough to check for negatives. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Thanks, 1 patch applied to wireless-drivers-next.git: d9739a26fbca atmel: potential underflow in atmel_set_freq() -- Sent by pwcli https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9061371/