From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755330Ab2IMSoQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:44:16 -0400 Received: from shamrock.taprogge.org ([213.146.117.139]:60439 "EHLO shamrock.taprogge.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751850Ab2IMSoO (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:44:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:43:46 +0200 From: Jens Taprogge To: Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Dan Carpenter , Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, industrypack-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] Staging: ipack/devices/ipoctal: Store isr masks in ipoctal_channel Message-ID: <20120913184346.GA11613@endeavour.taprogge.org> References: <1347454546-23236-1-git-send-email-siglesias@igalia.com> <1347454546-23236-7-git-send-email-siglesias@igalia.com> <20120913174312.GB4587@mwanda> <20120913174927.GA13767@mwanda> <1347560357.5884.7.camel@joe2Laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1347560357.5884.7.camel@joe2Laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Anti-Spam: Skipped scanning; message comes from a trusted host. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 20:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:43:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:29PM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote: > > > > From: Jens Taprogge > > > > > > > > This way interrupt handling becomes independent of the channel number. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jens Taprogge > > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez > > > > --- > > > > @@ -213,7 +206,7 @@ static int ipoctal_irq_handler(void *arg) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* RX data */ > > > > - if (isr_rx_rdy && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) { > > > > + if ((isr && channel->isr_rx_rdy_mask) && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) { > > > ^^ > > > Bitwise AND intended here I think. > > > > > > > Never mind. It gets silently fixed in the next patch. > > Nope, you were right the first time. > > It shouldn't be silently fixed, > > The best path is to rework the original patch > to fix the misuse or the worse path is that the > subsequent patch log should mention the fix. I am sorry this slipped through. The patches are already in staging-next. What is the best action to take now? Should I prepare the two patches with the issue fixed? Best Regards, Jens