On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:52 AM, John W. Linville<[email protected]> wrote: > Anybody?
Sorry for the delay, Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> This is actually pretty sloppy existing code and I'd prefer to see this nasty POS code rewritten to avoid such nasty checks from the start. Also notice how both ath9k_hw_get_legacy_target_powers() and ath9k_hw_get_target_powers() do exactly the same, except they use a different name for the bool, a different structure for the calibrated power targets (array size changes on one element of the struct). But this patch also fixes another not-noted potential negative rade index access: lowIndex could be -1 under a special circumstance and this would prevent that negative index access as well on powInfo[lowIndex]. So although this probably just does not happen right now its safer to have a fix for two of these theoretical negative array index access than nothing at hand; a proper rewrite of these two routines as I want it would require quite a few changes here and more testing. Mentally lets add that to the TODO list.. Luis _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
