RE: [PATCH] acpi: acpica: dsutils: fixanoff-by-one index

Hi, > From: Seraphime Kirkovski > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:14:46PM +, Moore, Robert wrote: > > I believe that the rationale for this is that at that point in the code, it > > is *guaranteed* that > there is at least one operand; therefore the -1 would always be valid. > > > > In the

RE: [PATCH] acpi: acpica: dsutils: fixanoff-by-one index

Hi, > From: Seraphime Kirkovski > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:14:46PM +, Moore, Robert wrote: > > I believe that the rationale for this is that at that point in the code, it > > is *guaranteed* that > there is at least one operand; therefore the -1 would always be valid. > > > > In the

Re: [PATCH] acpi: acpica: dsutils: fixanoff-by-one index

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:14:46PM +, Moore, Robert wrote: > I believe that the rationale for this is that at that point in the code, it > is *guaranteed* that there is at least one operand; therefore the -1 would > always be valid. > > In the end, we just deleted that call to >

Re: [PATCH] acpi: acpica: dsutils: fixanoff-by-one index

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:14:46PM +, Moore, Robert wrote: > I believe that the rationale for this is that at that point in the code, it > is *guaranteed* that there is at least one operand; therefore the -1 would > always be valid. > > In the end, we just deleted that call to >