On Tue, May 01 2018 at 10:42 -0600, Doug Anderson wrote:
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
True. Will fix it in the next spin correctly. --Lina -- 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
