On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:06:46PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.01.2012 08:30, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test
> > this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] array has 80
> > elements so when we cap it at 80, that's off by one. I would have
> > assumed that the test was wrong but in the lines right before we have
> > the same test but use "snr_reading - 1" as the array offset. I've done
> > the same thing here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c
> > index af65d01..3f5ae0a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/ds3000.c
> > @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ static int ds3000_read_snr(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u16 *snr)
> > snr_reading = dvbs2_noise_reading / tmp;
> > if (snr_reading > 80)
> > snr_reading = 80;
> > - *snr = -(dvbs2_snr_tab[snr_reading] / 1000);
> > + *snr = -(dvbs2_snr_tab[snr_reading - 1] / 1000);
> > }
> > dprintk("%s: raw / cooked = 0x%02x / 0x%04x\n", __func__,
> > snr_reading, *snr);
>
> hi dan,
>
> perhaps it is more useful to do it in the check above ?
It looks like the check is correct but we need to shift all the
values by one. Again, I don't have this hardware, I'm just going by
the context.
> thinking about that why not replace the number (80) with ARRAY_SIZE() ?
That would be a cleanup, yes but it could go in a separate patch.
regards,
dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
