On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:30 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > ov7670_read via i2c_transfer can return a positive # too.
> > Perhaps all of these should be individually tested for "< 0".
> You're misreading something. ov7670_read_i2c()
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:24:43PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> Hello Julia,
>
> IMHO keep the patch as it is.
> It does not change any code that is good.
> Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
> in a separate patch.
>
Gar... No, if we silence static checker warnings without
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall wrote:
> Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to abort
> these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could introduce
> some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
Yes, it would be safe. But
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
just my 2 cents,
re,
wh
Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> []
> > > @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, walter harms wrote:
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
OK, thanks!
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
[]
> > @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int
> > value)
> >
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
[]
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int
value)
unsigned char
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, walter harms wrote:
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
OK, thanks!
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
just my 2 cents,
re,
wh
Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
[]
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr wrote:
Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to abort
these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could introduce
some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
Yes, it
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:24:43PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
Gar... No, if we silence static checker warnings without fixing the
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:30 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
ov7670_read via i2c_transfer can return a positive # too.
Perhaps all of these should be individually tested for 0.
You're misreading something. ov7670_read_i2c() only
18 matches
Mail list logo
