On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, walter harms <wha...@bfs.de> wrote:
> Am 16.02.2017 12:53, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:27:47PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> We want to free msm_host->bus_clks so the > should be >=.
>>>> Fixes: 6e0eb52eba9e ("drm/msm/dsi: Parse bus clocks from a list")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>>>> index 1fc07ce24686..239e79b39a45 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>>>> @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static int dsi_bus_clk_enable(struct msm_dsi_host
>>>> return 0;
>>>> - for (; i > 0; i--)
>>>> + for (; i >= 0; i--)
>>> By the looks of it this is also wrong. I didn't look at the functions,
>>> but you probably don't want to unprepare something where prepare failed,
>>> i.e. you want to -1 both the start and end offsets. Perhaps the right
>>> fix is
>>> while (i--)
>>> which also seems to be widely used on error paths.
> We already know that programmers are bad in counting backwards ...
> any chance to make that into a forward loop ?
In most cases I'd agree with you. But I see that this while (i--) is
becoming somewhat of a pattern for error paths (grep for it), and I
think following patterns like this is more important. After a while, you
don't have to think about counting when you see it.
Besides, it's generally preferred to cleanup in the reverse order of
init, so a forward counting loop would require two variables here.
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
dri-devel mailing list