Improved position to increment variable i,
And typo fixes.
Signed-off-by: YAMANE Toshiaki <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
index 1b3e995..095d6f2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
@@ -309,26 +309,26 @@ static void qt_status_change_check(struct tty_struct *tty,
case 0x00:
if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
dev_dbg(&port->dev,
- "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
+ "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
break;
}
- ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
-
i += 3;
+ ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
+
flag = 1;
break;
case 0x01:
if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
dev_dbg(&port->dev,
- "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
+ "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
break;
}
- ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
-
i += 3;
+ ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
+
flag = 1;
break;
--
1.7.9.5
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:57:56PM +0900, YAMANE Toshiaki wrote:
> Improved position to increment variable i,
> And typo fixes.
>
> Signed-off-by: YAMANE Toshiaki <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
> index 1b3e995..095d6f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
> @@ -309,26 +309,26 @@ static void qt_status_change_check(struct tty_struct *tty,
> case 0x00:
> if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
> dev_dbg(&port->dev,
> - "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
> + "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
This is a different type of fix from:
> break;
> }
>
> - ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
> -
> i += 3;
> + ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
I think you just changed the logic in this function, didn't you?
> +
> flag = 1;
> break;
>
> case 0x01:
> if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
> dev_dbg(&port->dev,
> - "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
> + "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
> break;
> }
>
> - ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
> -
> i += 3;
> + ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
Same here, what happens to i after this?
Please break into two patches, and verify that you didn't break anything
here.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:57:56PM +0900, YAMANE Toshiaki wrote:
>> Improved position to increment variable i,
>> And typo fixes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YAMANE Toshiaki <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c | 12 ++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
>> index 1b3e995..095d6f2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c
>> @@ -309,26 +309,26 @@ static void qt_status_change_check(struct tty_struct *tty,
>> case 0x00:
>> if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
>> dev_dbg(&port->dev,
>> - "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
>> + "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
>
> This is a different type of fix from:
>
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> - ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
>> -
>> i += 3;
>> + ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
>
> I think you just changed the logic in this function, didn't you?
>
>> +
>> flag = 1;
>> break;
>>
>> case 0x01:
>> if (i > (RxCount - 4)) {
>> dev_dbg(&port->dev,
>> - "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
>> + "Illegal escape sequence in received data\n");
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> - ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
>> -
>> i += 3;
>> + ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
>
> Same here, what happens to i after this?
>
> Please break into two patches, and verify that you didn't break anything
> here.
Greg-san,
I am sorry for confusion.
I sent the patch twice since following patch was applied (gregkh/staging-next)
commit 9d36976fad3008fcc4209789566f7f3e7763f212
Modify qt_status_change_check() and delete qt_status_change().
-Incorporate comment of Mr.Joe Perches (sent Nov.17)
-I sent yesterday
Please discard the patches.
Thanks,
YAMANE Toshiaki
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:10:26PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:57:56PM +0900, YAMANE Toshiaki wrote:
> >
> > - ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
> > -
> > i += 3;
> > + ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
>
> I think you just changed the logic in this function, didn't you?
This should be ok. The i += 3 was there in the original, it's just
moved up a line.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:10:26PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:57:56PM +0900, YAMANE Toshiaki wrote:
>> >
>> > - ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
>> > -
>> > i += 3;
>> > + ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i]);
>>
>> I think you just changed the logic in this function, didn't you?
>
> This should be ok. The i += 3 was there in the original, it's just
> moved up a line.
Thanks for your kindness reply.
But please discard this patch.
Let me consider this patch again.
Regards,
YAMANE Toshiaki