* [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).