From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754207AbeDTJBR (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:01:17 -0400 Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:57352 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754074AbeDTJBQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:01:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:01:04 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Lee Jones Cc: Jorge Eduardo Candelaria , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: tps65911-comparator: Fix an off by one bug Message-ID: <20180420090104.pwejjqdjh2d2jlv3@mwanda> References: <20180419134634.GA19793@mwanda> <20180420080943.jdbf7vtnkc33vbvd@dell> <20180420082150.u2oovqr4b4fd6vrq@mwanda> <20180420083909.66a6t63s5q6vpwp7@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180420083909.66a6t63s5q6vpwp7@dell> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8868 signatures=668698 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=754 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804200090 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 09:39:09AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 09:09:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > The tps_comparators[] array is used in two places. We only access the > > > > COMP1 (1) and COMP2 (2) elements. Unfortunately, we're accessing the > > > > wrong elements and also one element beyond the end of the array. There > > > > was supposed to be a zero element at the start of the array which is > > > > isn't accessed but makes the math work out nicely. > > > > > > I normally just apply patches from you, but this is a hack, right? > > > > I liked it, I thought it was nice. It uses 32 bytes but any fix was > > going to use *some* memory. I don't have strong feelings about it > > though, if you want to write a different patch I can do that instead. > > #define COMP 0 > #define COMP1 1 > #define COMP2 2 > > It's unclear what the defines mean, but if COMP really does exist (is > there a datasheet for this device?) then your solution is a suitable > one. However, if there is a COMP, then why isn't it used? > > If it doesn't actually exist then this would be more appropriate > change I think: > > #define COMP1 0 > #define COMP2 1 > I hate to define something_one as zero... Let me send a different patch for this and see what you think. regards, dan carpenter