On 6/12/2020 4:24 AM, Guinan Sun wrote:
> The condition for comparing retry against max_retry was flawed in the
> do-while loops. For the case where retry was initialized to 0 and
> max_retry was initialized to 1, we'd break out of the loop at the
> condition when the intent is to retry the code at least once.
> Otherwise, the loop is unnecessary. The other places have a larger
> max_retry so code would get run multiple times (if necessary), but not
> to the intended extent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeb Cramer <jeb.j.cra...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guinan Sun <guinanx....@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c
> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c
> index 9bb24f1ef..823cf161e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ s32 ixgbe_read_i2c_combined_generic_int(struct ixgbe_hw
> *hw, u8 addr, u16 reg,
> else
> DEBUGOUT("I2C byte read combined error.\n");
> retry++;
> - } while (retry < max_retry);
> + } while (retry <= max_retry);
>
> return IXGBE_ERR_I2C;
Ahh, previous patch becomes correct with this change, can you please combine
them? No need to break first and fix later.
