On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:43:46PM +0200, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 20:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:43:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:29PM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote:
> > > > > From: Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > This way interrupt handling becomes independent of the channel number.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > @@ -213,7 +206,7 @@ static int ipoctal_irq_handler(void *arg)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /* RX data */
> > > > > - if (isr_rx_rdy && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) {
> > > > > + if ((isr && channel->isr_rx_rdy_mask) && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) {
> > > > ^^
> > > > Bitwise AND intended here I think.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Never mind. It gets silently fixed in the next patch.
> >
> > Nope, you were right the first time.
> >
> > It shouldn't be silently fixed,
> >
> > The best path is to rework the original patch
> > to fix the misuse or the worse path is that the
> > subsequent patch log should mention the fix.
>
> I am sorry this slipped through. The patches are already in
> staging-next. What is the best action to take now? Should I prepare
> the two patches with the issue fixed?
If it weren't in staging-next then, yeah, it probably would have
been better to resend those two patches. You could send them by
themselves without resending any of the others. But once they hit
staging-next, it's too late.
No stress.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
