On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 05:20:38PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Coverity complains about two overruns in process_tx_desc(). The
> complaints are false positives, but we might as well eliminate
> them. The problem is that "hdr" is defined as an unsigned int,
> but then used to offset an array of siz
- Original Message -
> On 4 June 2013 08:34, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > I could send a v2 that fixes the 1 error and 2 warnings found in the
> > context
> > of this patch, but why? It's out of the scope of the patch (although I did
> > use "cleanup" in the summary...), and it would hardly m
On 4 June 2013 08:34, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I could send a v2 that fixes the 1 error and 2 warnings found in the context
> of this patch, but why? It's out of the scope of the patch (although I did
> use "cleanup" in the summary...), and it would hardly make a dent in this
> file's problems.
The
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On 06/03/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > Coverity complains about two overruns in process_tx_desc(). The
> > > complaints are false positives, but we might as well eliminate
> > > them. The problem
- Original Message -
> On 06/03/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Coverity complains about two overruns in process_tx_desc(). The
> > complaints are false positives, but we might as well eliminate
> > them. The problem is that "hdr" is defined as an unsigned int,
> > but then used to
On 06/03/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Coverity complains about two overruns in process_tx_desc(). The
> complaints are false positives, but we might as well eliminate
> them. The problem is that "hdr" is defined as an unsigned int,
> but then used to offset an array of size 65536, and anoth
