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. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
