* [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested @ 2009-01-31 12:42 Roel Kluin 2009-02-01 9:59 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Roel Kluin @ 2009-01-31 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev, lkml With a postfix decrement these reach -1 rather than 0, but after the loop it is tested to have become 0. Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> --- diff --git a/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c b/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c index 61843fd..78f8cee 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c +++ b/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static int reset_one_mii_phy(struct mii_phy* phy, int phy_id) udelay(100); - while (limit--) { + while (--limit) { val = __phy_read(phy, phy_id, MII_BMCR); if ((val & BMCR_RESET) == 0) break; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested 2009-01-31 12:42 [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested Roel Kluin @ 2009-02-01 9:59 ` David Miller 2009-02-01 17:15 ` Roel Kluin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2009-02-01 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: roel.kluin; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel From: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:42:36 +0100 > With a postfix decrement these reach -1 rather than 0, > but after the loop it is tested to have become 0. > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> Just like the case just pointed out in your 'net' version of this patch, it is being tested "<= 0" so this fix is not necessary at all. Please carefully review all of your changes of this kind to make sure the test is strictly equality to zero rather than <= 0. I'm dropping all of these postfix decrement patches. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested 2009-02-01 9:59 ` David Miller @ 2009-02-01 17:15 ` Roel Kluin 2009-02-03 7:19 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Roel Kluin @ 2009-02-01 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel David Miller wrote: > From: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:42:36 +0100 > >> With a postfix decrement these reach -1 rather than 0, >> but after the loop it is tested to have become 0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> > > Just like the case just pointed out in your 'net' version > of this patch, it is being tested "<= 0" so this fix > is not necessary at all. The change is correct although the changelog is not clear. This is also true for the cassini patch, here included as well. How about: ------------------>8----------------8<------------------------- while (limit--) if (test()) break; if (limit <= 0) goto test_failed; In the last iteration, limit is decremented after the test to 0. If just thereafter test() succeeds and a break occurs, the goto still occurs because limit is 0. Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> --- drivers/net/cassini.c | 4 ++-- drivers/net/sungem_phy.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/cassini.c b/drivers/net/cassini.c index 840b3d1..bbbc3bb 100644 --- a/drivers/net/cassini.c +++ b/drivers/net/cassini.c @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static int cas_reset_mii_phy(struct cas *cp) cas_phy_write(cp, MII_BMCR, BMCR_RESET); udelay(100); - while (limit--) { + while (--limit) { val = cas_phy_read(cp, MII_BMCR); if ((val & BMCR_RESET) == 0) break; @@ -979,7 +979,7 @@ static void cas_phy_init(struct cas *cp) writel(val, cp->regs + REG_PCS_MII_CTRL); limit = STOP_TRIES; - while (limit-- > 0) { + while (--limit > 0) { udelay(10); if ((readl(cp->regs + REG_PCS_MII_CTRL) & PCS_MII_RESET) == 0) diff --git a/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c b/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c index 61843fd..78f8cee 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c +++ b/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static int reset_one_mii_phy(struct mii_phy* phy, int phy_id) udelay(100); - while (limit--) { + while (--limit) { val = __phy_read(phy, phy_id, MII_BMCR); if ((val & BMCR_RESET) == 0) break; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested 2009-02-01 17:15 ` Roel Kluin @ 2009-02-03 7:19 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2009-02-03 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: roel.kluin; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel From: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:15:27 +0100 > while (limit--) > if (test()) > break; > > if (limit <= 0) > goto test_failed; > > In the last iteration, limit is decremented after the test to 0. > If just thereafter test() succeeds and a break occurs, the goto > still occurs because limit is 0. > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> Also applied, thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-03 7:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-01-31 12:42 [PATCH] sungem: limit reaches -1, but 0 tested Roel Kluin 2009-02-01 9:59 ` David Miller 2009-02-01 17:15 ` Roel Kluin 2009-02-03 7:19 ` David Miller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).