lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] gianfar: correct the bad expression while writing bit-pattern
    On 1/12/2015 9:43 AM, Sanjeev Sharma wrote:
    > This patch correct the bad expression while writing the
    > bit-pattern from software's buffer to hardware registers.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@mentor.com>
    > ---
    > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c | 2 +-
    > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c
    > index 3e1a9c1..1ccca72 100644
    > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c
    > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c
    > @@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@ static int gfar_write_filer_table(struct gfar_private *priv,
    > return -EBUSY;
    >
    > /* Fill regular entries */
    > - for (; i < MAX_FILER_IDX - 1 && (tab->fe[i].ctrl | tab->fe[i].ctrl);
    > + for (; i < MAX_FILER_IDX - 1 && ( i < tab->fe[i].ctrl);
    > i++)

    Why do you think 'i' can be compared with the 'ctrl' field?
    Is the control field an index (provide proof if yes)? I doubt it...

    Thanks,
    Claudiu



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-01-12 15:41    [W:2.851 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site