On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 20:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:43:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:29PM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote:
> > > > From: Jens Taprogge <jens.tapro...@taprogge.org>
> > > >
> > > > This way interrupt handling becomes independent of the channel number.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jens Taprogge <jens.tapro...@taprogge.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > @@ -213,7 +206,7 @@ static int ipoctal_irq_handler(void *arg)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* RX data */
> > > > - if (isr_rx_rdy && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) {
> > > > + if ((isr && channel->isr_rx_rdy_mask) && (sr &
> > > > SR_RX_READY)) {
> > > ^^
> > > Bitwise AND intended here I think.
> > >
> >
> > Never mind. It gets silently fixed in the next patch.
>
> Nope, you were right the first time.
>
> It shouldn't be silently fixed,
>
> The best path is to rework the original patch
> to fix the misuse or the worse path is that the
> subsequent patch log should mention the fix.
I am sorry this slipped through. The patches are already in
staging-next. What is the best action to take now? Should I prepare
the two patches with the issue fixed?
Best Regards,
Jens
--
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/
