[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc1bf93d92bb5b2f99c6c62745507cc22f3a7b2d.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2022 00:04:08 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org, jgg@...pe.ca,
arnd@...db.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: lantiq_etop: add blank line after
declaration
(adding John Crispin, the original submitter of this driver)
On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 23:00 +0100, Aleksander Jan Bajkowski wrote:
> This patch adds a missing line after the declaration and
> fixes the checkpatch warning:
>
> WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> + int desc;
> + for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c
[]
> @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ ltq_etop_free_channel(struct net_device *dev, struct ltq_etop_chan *ch)
> free_irq(ch->dma.irq, priv);
> if (IS_RX(ch->idx)) {
> int desc;
> +
> for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
> dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc]);
> }
The change is innocuous and has already been applied but the code
doesn't seem to make sense.
Why is dev_kfree_skb_any called multiple times with the same argument?
Is there some missing logic here? Maybe a missing ++?
Something like:
for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc++]);
Dunno, but the current code seems wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists