On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 07:29:33AM +0200, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:12:48AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > + > > > + return 0xFF & rc; > > > > You didn't introduce this, but it's wrong. It's masking out negative > > error codes. The caller does check for error codes. Probably it > > would make more sense to just return rc directly... I'm not sure what > > was intended here. > > You have a point although in this particular case it is more pointless > then wrong. I will fix in another patch, though. usb_control_msg() returns the number of bytes transfered or it returns a negative error code. The mask would change a return value of -ENOMEM into 244 bytes successfully transfered. So that's definitely not right. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
