Hi,
2015-01-22 19:14 GMT+09:00 Dan Carpenter :
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:05:53AM +, David Binderman wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> [linux-3.19-rc5/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c:981]: (warning) Logical
>> disjunction always evaluates to true: conc_type != 65 || conc_type != 66.
>>
>> Source c
Hello there,
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:20:44AM +, David Binderman wrote:
>> I used the static analyser cppcheck to find these two bugs, but
>> you might be able to find similar problems by using gcc compiler
>> flag -Wlogical-op.
>
> I turned it on,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:20:44AM +, David Binderman wrote:
> I used the static analyser cppcheck to find these two bugs, but
> you might be able to find similar problems by using gcc compiler
> flag -Wlogical-op.
I turned it on, but GCC 4.7.2 doesn't find anything for me.
It complains about
:22 +0300
> From: dan.carpen...@oracle.com
> To: dcb...@hotmail.com; daeseok.y...@gmail.com
> CC: driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org
> Subject: Re: staging/dgap/dgap.c:981: bad if test ?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:05:53AM +, David Binderman wrote:
>> Hell
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:05:53AM +, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> [linux-3.19-rc5/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c:981]: (warning) Logical
> disjunction always evaluates to true: conc_type != 65 || conc_type != 66.
>
> Source code is
>
> if (conc_type == 0 || conc_type
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:15:34AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I've been away for a while but should be able to find some time to work
> on the dgap driver some more. Do you have a TODO list?
>
Really there is just a lot of misc clean up work to do.
Get rid of forward declaratio
There isn't a rule for that.
regards,
dan carpenter
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
On 05/22/2014 04:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:49:22PM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> I understand that unnecessarily initializing them is wrong. But if they
>> do need initialized, is it preferred to do it in the declaration or in
>> the code before it is used?
>
> Wh
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:49:22PM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> I understand that unnecessarily initializing them is wrong. But if they
> do need initialized, is it preferred to do it in the declaration or in
> the code before it is used?
Which ever is more clear. It's up to you. Or do you me
On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:06:46 +0300, Dan Carpenter
wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 07:57:08AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > On 05/16/2014 07:52 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > > On 05/15/2014 06:49 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer w
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 07:57:08AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 07:52 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > On 05/15/2014 06:49 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As I got a bit queued up for dgap, I ju
On 05/16/2014 07:52 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 06:49 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As I got a bit queued up for dgap, I just noticed that commit 542f3d5a
>>> states
>>> to add Mark to the maintainer
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 07:52:53AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 06:49 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As I got a bit queued up for dgap, I just noticed that commit 542f3d5a
> >> states
> >> to ad
On 05/15/2014 06:49 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I got a bit queued up for dgap, I just noticed that commit 542f3d5a states
>> to add Mark to the maintainers list for dgap, while the patch addresses the
>> dgnc entr
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I got a bit queued up for dgap, I just noticed that commit 542f3d5a states
> to add Mark to the maintainers list for dgap, while the patch addresses the
> dgnc entry. Was that the intention?
No, it wasn't at all.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:07:12AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> The latest staging tree based on 3.15-rc1 has revealed a bug that I
> introduced into the dgap driver way back. Various oops occur when
> loading and unloading the driver multiple times in succession. The oops
> never actually indic
16 matches
Mail list logo
