2011-03-08 19:53:03

by Roel Kluin

Subject: [PATCH] can: wrong index used in inner loop

Index i was already used in the outer loop.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c | 6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
index 05a5275..dc53c83 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ failed:
static void unlink_all_urbs(struct esd_usb2 *dev)
{
struct esd_usb2_net_priv *priv;
- int i;
+ int i, j;

usb_kill_anchored_urbs(&dev->rx_submitted);
for (i = 0; i < dev->net_count; i++) {
@@ -668,8 +668,8 @@ static void unlink_all_urbs(struct esd_usb2 *dev)
usb_kill_anchored_urbs(&priv->tx_submitted);
atomic_set(&priv->active_tx_jobs, 0);

- for (i = 0; i < MAX_TX_URBS; i++)
- priv->tx_contexts[i].echo_index = MAX_TX_URBS;
+ for (j = 0; j < MAX_TX_URBS; j++)
+ priv->tx_contexts[j].echo_index = MAX_TX_URBS;
}
}
}

2011-03-14 21:47:07

by David Miller

Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: wrong index used in inner loop

From: roel <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:55 +0100

> Index i was already used in the outer loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

CAN maintainers, could you please review and ACK patches in a timely manner,
especially utterly trivial bug fixes like this one here?

That's largely what I've been waiting for, a simple sign of life from the
listed maintainers for these files.

Anyways, no use waiting any longer, applied, thanks Roel.

2011-03-15 09:08:19

by Wolfgang Grandegger

Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: wrong index used in inner loop

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT), David Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: roel <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:55 +0100
>
>> Index i was already used in the outer loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
>
> CAN maintainers, could you please review and ACK patches in a timely
> manner,
> especially utterly trivial bug fixes like this one here?
>
> That's largely what I've been waiting for, a simple sign of life from
the
> listed maintainers for these files.

OK, will try to react fast next time.

> Anyways, no use waiting any longer, applied, thanks Roel.

Thanks,

Wolfgang.