Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > I think it's pointless to write "it was introduced by self-ack" at
> > all if you do not also write who it was. Either go all the way and
> > actually blame someone because you think it's a big deal or don't
> > bother because it's just about _one bit_.
>
> It's o
On 06.05.2009 15:52, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>
>> Improve SST25 status register routines:
>> - Using a 4-bit index into an array with 8 elements leads to
>> out-of-bounds accesses. That bug was introduced by a self-acked patch
>> from someone. Use proper bit masking to
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Improve SST25 status register routines:
> - Using a 4-bit index into an array with 8 elements leads to
> out-of-bounds accesses. That bug was introduced by a self-acked patch
> from someone. Use proper bit masking to fix this.
I think it's pointless to write "it was
Improve SST25 status register routines:
- Using a 4-bit index into an array with 8 elements leads to
out-of-bounds accesses. That bug was introduced by a self-acked patch
from someone. Use proper bit masking to fix this.
- Factor out common SST25 status register printing.
- Use the common SST25 sta
4 matches
Mail list logo
