lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:34:47 +0200 From: Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com> To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [media-s3c-camif] question about arguments position Hi Gustavo, On 05/04/2017 09:05 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to > camif_hw_set_effect() function do not match the order of the parameters: > > camif->colorfx_cb is passed to cr > camif->colorfx_cr is passed to cb > > This is the function prototype: > > void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect, > unsigned int cr, unsigned int cb) > > My question here is if this is intentional? > > In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be > great to hear any comment about it. You are right, it seems you have found a real bug. Feel free to send a patch. The best thing to do now might be to change the function prototype to: void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect, unsigned int cb, unsigned int cr) -- Regards, Sylwester
Powered by blists - more mailing lists