Am 05.09.2012 14:34, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> We should decrement "i" before doing the free_irq(). If we call this
> because request_threaded_irq() failed then we don't want to free the
> thing which failed. Or in the case where we get here because
> power_supply_register() failed then the original codes does a read past
> the end of the array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c b/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> index 20b86ed..d9d034d 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/da9052-battery.c
> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static s32 __devinit da9052_bat_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
>
> err:
> - for (; i >= 0; i--) {
> + while (--i >= 0) {
> irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, da9052_bat_irqs[i]);
> free_irq(bat->da9052->irq_base + irq, bat);
> }
hi da,
(my usual nitpicking ...)
since a lot of people do make mistakes on count-down-loops, is there any chance
to
make this a common count-up-for()-loop ?
like:
for (j=0; j <= i ;j++ ) {
irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, da9052_bat_irqs[j]);
free_irq(bat->da9052->irq_base + irq, bat);
}
re,
wh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
