Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:06:46 +0100 | From | walter harms <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] [media] ds3000: off by one in ds3000_read_snr() |
| |
Am 17.01.2012 08:30, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test > this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] array has 80 > elements so when we cap it at 80, that's off by one. I would have > assumed that the test was wrong but in the lines right before we have > the same test but use "snr_reading - 1" as the array offset. I've done > the same thing here. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c > index af65d01..3f5ae0a 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c > +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c > @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ static int ds3000_read_snr(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u16 *snr) > snr_reading = dvbs2_noise_reading / tmp; > if (snr_reading > 80) > snr_reading = 80; > - *snr = -(dvbs2_snr_tab[snr_reading] / 1000); > + *snr = -(dvbs2_snr_tab[snr_reading - 1] / 1000); > } > dprintk("%s: raw / cooked = 0x%02x / 0x%04x\n", __func__, > snr_reading, *snr);
hi dan,
perhaps it is more useful to do it in the check above ? thinking about that why not replace the number (80) with ARRAY_SIZE() ?
re, wh
| |