Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:22:17 +0200 | From | Claudiu Manoil <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gianfar: correct the bad expression while writing bit-pattern |
| |
On 1/12/2015 9:43 AM, Sanjeev Sharma wrote: > This patch correct the bad expression while writing the > bit-pattern from software's buffer to hardware registers. > > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@mentor.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c > index 3e1a9c1..1ccca72 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c > @@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@ static int gfar_write_filer_table(struct gfar_private *priv, > return -EBUSY; > > /* Fill regular entries */ > - for (; i < MAX_FILER_IDX - 1 && (tab->fe[i].ctrl | tab->fe[i].ctrl); > + for (; i < MAX_FILER_IDX - 1 && ( i < tab->fe[i].ctrl); > i++)
Why do you think 'i' can be compared with the 'ctrl' field? Is the control field an index (provide proof if yes)? I doubt it...
Thanks, Claudiu
| |