On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:18:52PM +0200, Paolo Cretaro wrote: > On 16/09/2017 13:37, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 01:11:29PM +0200, Paolo Cretaro wrote: > >> Hi Dan, > >> just minor nitpicking on the commit message: > >> > >> On 08/09/2017 12:53, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >>> The background of this code is that we can either use the default > >>> tables or load our own table with sysfs. The default tables are three > >>> element arrays of struct tsl2x7x_lux. If we load the table with sysfs > >>> then we can have as many as nine elements. Which ever way we do it, the > >>> last element is always zeroed out. > >>> > >>> The most interesting part of this patch is in the > >>> in_illuminance0_lux_table_show() function. We were using the wrong > >>> limit, "TSL2X7X_MAX_LUX_TABLE_SIZE * 3", when it should have been just > >>> "TSL2X7X_MAX_LUX_TABLE_SIZE". This creates a static checker warning > >>> that we are going of of bounds. However, since the last element is > >> out of bounds > >> > >> Regards, > >> P. > >> > >>> always zeroed out, that means we hit the break statement and the code > >>> works correctly despite the wrong limit check. > > > > What? No no. I meant it how I wrote it. The last element is > > always zeroed out meaning it's just a series of zeroes. > > Sorry, I meant the previous sentence "This creates a static checker warning > that we are going of of bounds". > Ah. Of course. Thanks Jonathan for fixing this. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
