On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 03:22:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It's a good point. I will redo the patch.
Sorry, I've decided to bail on this. The original code is buggy but
I don't know what's going on well enough to fix it with any
confidence.
regards,
dan carpenter
signature.asc
Descript
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:26:41AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> >> perhaps it is more useful to do it in the check above ?
> >
> > It looks like the check is correct but we need to shift all the
> > values by one. Again, I don't have this hardware, I'm just going by
> > the context.
> >
> I do n
Am 19.01.2012 10:33, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:06:46PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 17.01.2012 08:30, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>>> This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test
>>> this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] a
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:06:46PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.01.2012 08:30, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test
> > this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] array has 80
> > elements so when we cap it at 80,
Am 17.01.2012 08:30, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test
> this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] array has 80
> elements so when we cap it at 80, that's off by one. I would have
> assumed that the test was wrong but in
This is a static checker patch and I don't have the hardware to test
this, so please review it carefully. The dvbs2_snr_tab[] array has 80
elements so when we cap it at 80, that's off by one. I would have
assumed that the test was wrong but in the lines right before we have
the same test but use
