On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Hi, > > while looking at potential clean-up, I ended on the following code > which looks spurious to me. > > We allocate 'be16_to_cpu(scan_info->size)' bytes, but then copy > 'scan_info->size'. > This is not consistent. >
Good catch. be16_to_cpu(scan_info->size) is correct. It's surprising that this bug wasn't caught in testing... regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
