On 22/10/2010 22:18, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 20:29 +0100, Jack Stone wrote: >> On 22/10/2010 20:23, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:13:27PM +0100, Jack Stone wrote: >>>> On 22/10/2010 19:39, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> drivers/net/r6040.c | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> --- a/drivers/net/r6040.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/r6040.c >>>>> @@ -976,6 +976,7 @@ static void r6040_multicast_list(struct >>>>> iowrite16(hash_table[3], ioaddr + MAR3); >>>>> } >>>>> /* Multicast Address 1~4 case */ >>>>> + dmi = dev->mc_list; >>>>> for (i = 0, dmi; (i < dev->mc_count) && (i < MCAST_MAX); i++) { >>>> Any reason for the dmi in the above line? As far as I can see it is a >>>> nop. >>> >>> Look closer at the for loop please. >> >> Maybe I'm missing something but: >> for (i = 0, ---->dmi <----; (i < ... >> >> The dmi here still doesn't seem to do anything? > > It doesn't, but it doesn't do any harm either. The loop has been > rewritten in mainline.
Agreed, it causes no problems, but it seems like it was intended to be the dmi init, i.e. for (i = 0, dmi = dev->mc_list; ... I suppose it doesn't really matter but either removing the dmi in the for loop or moving the dmi init in there would make more sense to me. I really should learn to explain myself fully. Sorry for taking up your time. Thanks, Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org