Hi,
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, this is incorrect in its current form. This is what it should be -
>
> static int find_match(const struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_cmd
> *cmd,
> int len)
> {
> int i, j;
>
> /* Check for already cached commands */
> for_each_set_bit(i, tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS) {
> if (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr)
> continue;
> for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
> WARN(tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr,
> "Message does not match previous sequence.\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
If len > 0, won't the above always return -EINVAL?
> if (j == len - 1)
> return i;
Care to explain how you could get here and the test "if (j == len -
1)" could be false? ;-P
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
