On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:01PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> The "data" parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
> edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
>
> This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
> edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:01PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
The data parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone
On 03/23/2015 10:35 PM, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> The "data" parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
> edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
>
> This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
> edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone changes struct
On 03/23/2015 10:35 PM, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
The data parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone changes struct edma_chan
The "data" parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone changes struct edma_chan this would
cause troubles.
Signed-off-by:
The data parameter passed indirectly to the edma_callback() should be
edma_chan and not the dma_chan.
This bug was so far harmless since the offset of struct dma_chan within struct
edma_chan is 0. However as soon as someone changes struct edma_chan this would
cause troubles.
Signed-off-by: Petr
6 matches
Mail list logo