Am 22.02.2012 08:54, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:39:42PM +0100, walter harms wrote: >>> - memset(&(msg1.bssid.data), 0xFF, sizeof(p80211item_pstr6_t)); >>> + memset(&msg1.bssid.data, 0xFF, sizeof(msg1.bssid.data)); >>> msg1.bssid.data.len = 6; >> >> maybe msg1.bssid.data.len is related to msg1.bssid.data ? >> I guess sizeof(msg1.bssid.data)-1 (why -1). >> >> perhaps you can fix both ? >> > > It's an interesting point. The problem is that I don't actually > have this hardware. On the patch which I sent, it was obvious what > the intent. My guess is that msg1.bssid.data[] should have 6 > elements instead of 7, but I don't feel confident enough to sign off > on that. > > Let's fix this bug which is obvious and let someone who knows how to > fix that other question address it. > Now it lokks better than before, lets wait what the maintainer can say about this. otherwise what about a /* FIXME: */ ? re, wh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
