[PATCH] can: wrong index used in inner loop

[roel]

Index i was already used in the outer loop.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel....@gmail.com>
---
drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c | 6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
index 05a5275..dc53c83 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/esd_usb2.c
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ failed:
static void unlink_all_urbs(struct esd_usb2 *dev)
{
struct esd_usb2_net_priv *priv;
- int i;
+ int i, j;

usb_kill_anchored_urbs(&dev->rx_submitted);
for (i = 0; i < dev->net_count; i++) {
@@ -668,8 +668,8 @@ static void unlink_all_urbs(struct esd_usb2 *dev)
usb_kill_anchored_urbs(&priv->tx_submitted);
atomic_set(&priv->active_tx_jobs, 0);

- for (i = 0; i < MAX_TX_URBS; i++)
- priv->tx_contexts[i].echo_index = MAX_TX_URBS;
+ for (j = 0; j < MAX_TX_URBS; j++)
+ priv->tx_contexts[j].echo_index = MAX_TX_URBS;
}
}
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[David Miller]

From: roel <roel....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:55 +0100

> Index i was already used in the outer loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel....@gmail.com>

CAN maintainers, could you please review and ACK patches in a timely manner,
especially utterly trivial bug fixes like this one here?

That's largely what I've been waiting for, a simple sign of life from the
listed maintainers for these files.

Anyways, no use waiting any longer, applied, thanks Roel.

[wg]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT), David Miller
<da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: roel <roel....@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:55 +0100
>
>> Index i was already used in the outer loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel....@gmail.com>
>
> CAN maintainers, could you please review and ACK patches in a timely
> manner,
> especially utterly trivial bug fixes like this one here?
>
> That's largely what I've been waiting for, a simple sign of life from
the
> listed maintainers for these files.

OK, will try to react fast next time.

> Anyways, no use waiting any longer, applied, thanks Roel.

Thanks,

Wolfgang.