On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 20:29 +0100, Jack Stone wrote:
> On 22/10/2010 20:23, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:13:27PM +0100, Jack Stone wrote:
> >> On 22/10/2010 19:39, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> drivers/net/r6040.c | 1 +
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/r6040.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/r6040.c
> >>> @@ -976,6 +976,7 @@ static void r6040_multicast_list(struct
> >>> iowrite16(hash_table[3], ioaddr + MAR3);
> >>> }
> >>> /* Multicast Address 1~4 case */
> >>> + dmi = dev->mc_list;
> >>> for (i = 0, dmi; (i < dev->mc_count) && (i < MCAST_MAX); i++) {
> >> Any reason for the dmi in the above line? As far as I can see it is a
> >> nop.
> >
> > Look closer at the for loop please.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but:
> for (i = 0, ---->dmi <----; (i < ...
>
> The dmi here still doesn't seem to do anything?
It doesn't, but it doesn't do any harm either. The loop has been
rewritten in mainline.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part