Hi Kim,
On 11/04/2014 06:57 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:57:57 +0200
> Cristian Stoica wrote:
>> Do you want me to drop the patch and pretend there is nothing to see?
>
> no, fixing potential bugs preemptively is fine; I'd just like to
> know that's the case: it wasn't clear
Hi Kim,
On 11/04/2014 06:57 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:57:57 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
Do you want me to drop the patch and pretend there is nothing to see?
no, fixing potential bugs preemptively is fine; I'd just like to
know that's the
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:57:57 +0200
Cristian Stoica wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> >> Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
> >
> > ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
>
> Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool analyser
> did not see
Hi Kim,
>> Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
>
> ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool analyser
did not see anything wrong here?
> the new code just added a new condition, which
Hi Kim,
Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool analyser
did not see anything wrong here?
the new code just added a new condition, which doesn't
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:57:57 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
Hi Kim,
Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:18:36 +0200
Cristian Stoica wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 08:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
> > Cristian Stoica wrote:
> >
> > If this issue was brought up by h/w, the appropriate new error codes
> > should be being introduced.
>
> If you have
Hi Kim,
On 10/31/2014 08:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
> Cristian Stoica wrote:
>
> If this issue was brought up by h/w, the appropriate new error codes
> should be being introduced.
If you have the new error codes please send them to me and I'll make an
Hi Kim,
On 10/31/2014 08:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
If this issue was brought up by h/w, the appropriate new error codes
should be being introduced.
If you have the new error codes please send them to
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:18:36 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
On 10/31/2014 08:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
If this issue was brought up by h/w, the appropriate new error codes
On Friday, October 31, 2014 at 07:22:09 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
>
> Cristian Stoica wrote:
> > The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
> > zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get between
> > 0x8 and 0xf
On Friday, October 31, 2014 at 07:22:09 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
Cristian Stoica wrote:
> The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
> zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get between
> 0x8 and 0xf will trigger an out of bound array access on the error
> message table.
If
The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get between
0x8 and 0xf will trigger an out of bound array access on the error
message table.
This patch fixes the invalid array access following such an error and
The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get between
0x8 and 0xf will trigger an out of bound array access on the error
message table.
This patch fixes the invalid array access following such an error and
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
Cristian Stoica cristian.sto...@freescale.com wrote:
The error code returned by hardware is four bits wide with an expected
zero MSB. A hardware error condition where the error code can get between
0x8 and 0xf will trigger an out of bound array access on the
16 matches
Mail list logo
