On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:06:12PM +0545, Devendra Naga wrote:
>> as we do a strcpy(smdrv_ptr->fb_struct->fix->id, name), and the name here in
>> sm7xxx_probe is not having any assignment, and which leads to copying of the garbage value
>> into the id field of the fix struct of fb interface struct. fix it by copying the name before
>> calling alloc_fbinfo
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <develkernel412222@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Only compile tested
>> This patch is not tested using the hardware... if any one is having this hardware, i request them to
>> please test this
>> drivers/staging/sm7xxfb/sm7xxfb.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm7xxfb/sm7xxfb.c b/drivers/staging/sm7xxfb/sm7xxfb.c
>> index 1c1780c..d3957ef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/sm7xxfb/sm7xxfb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/sm7xxfb/sm7xxfb.c
>> @@ -798,16 +798,17 @@ static int __devinit smtcfb_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>>
>> + sprintf(name, "sm%Xfb", ent->device);
>> +
>> sfb = smtc_alloc_fb_info(pdev, name);
>>
>> + sfb->chip_id = ent->device;
>> +
>> if (!sfb) {
>
> Thanks for fixing this, and well done for spotting the bug.
>
Thanks Dan...
> There is a dereference before the check here, but I see you resent
> this in another thread. Next time could you respond to the
> original with a message which says to not apply it.
>
Sure but i have a doubt.
since we do V++ after every change to the sent patch , do we really
need to say that please dont apply this patch and there's one more
patch coming with fix?
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
