On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 11:09:45PM +0100, roel kluin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Sarah Sharp > <sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:01:53PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote: > >> After the loop `for (i = 0; i < config->desc.bNumInterfaces; i++)' if no > >> break occurred, i equals config->desc.bNumInterfaces. so if > >> usb_control_msg() failed then after goto reset_old_alts we read from > >> config->interface[config->desc.bNumInterfaces]. > >> We can safely decrement i as well if the break occurred. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Bah, yes, you're right. :) Good catch. > > Could you please confirm whether this patch is the better or the > other (in this same thread)? Can someone tell me which one is the correct one to apply, but resending it to me? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
