Re: [patch] da9052-battery: don't free IRQ that wasn't requested

[walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>]

Am 05.09.2012 14:34, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> We should decrement "i" before doing the free_irq().  If we call this
> because request_threaded_irq() failed then we don't want to free the
> thing which failed.  Or in the case where we get here because
> power_supply_register() failed then the original codes does a read past
> the end of the array.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c b/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> index 20b86ed..d9d034d 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static s32 __devinit da9052_bat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	return 0;
>  
>  err:
> -	for (; i >= 0; i--) {
> +	while (--i >= 0) {
>  		irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, da9052_bat_irqs[i]);
>  		free_irq(bat->da9052->irq_base + irq, bat);
>  	}

hi da,
(my usual nitpicking ...)
since a lot of people do make mistakes on count-down-loops, is there any chance to
make this a common count-up-for()-loop ?
like:
   for (j=0; j <= i ;j++ ) {
	irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, da9052_bat_irqs[j]);
	free_irq(bat->da9052->irq_base + irq, bat);
	}

re,
 wh