Re: [rfc patch] wm8994: range checking issue

[Dan Carpenter]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:59:46PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 03:01:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Smatch complained about BUG_ON(reg > WM8994_MAX_REGISTER) because the
> > actual number of elements in the array was WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE + 1.
> 
> > I changed the BUG_ON() to return -EINVAL.
> 
> Please don't introduce orthogonal changes like this in patches, it's bad
> practice and increases the chances of your patch being nacked.
> 
> > I was confused why WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE was different from the actual
> > size of ->reg_cache and I was concerned because some places used 
> > ARRAY_SIZE() to find the end of the array and other places used 
> > WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE.  In my patch, I made them the same.
> 
> This is caused by confusion with the MAX_CACHED_REGISTER definition in
> the header.  Best to use that one consistently, I guess - I've got a
> sneaking suspicion something has gone AWOL in the driver publication
> process.


Hm...  That sounds more involved than I anticipated.  I don't have the
hardware and don't feel comfortable making complicated changes if I
can't test them.

Can someone else take care of this.

regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/