Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMSC: timeout reaches -1

From: Roel Kluin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:51:36 +0100

David Miller wrote:
> From: Roel Kluin <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:21:33 +0100
> 
>> With a postfix decrement timeouts will reach -1 rather than 0, so
>> the error path does not appear.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email-masked]>
> 
> Steve Glendinning submitted the smsc9420 side of this patch,
> please resubmit this with only the smsc911x.c part present.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
ok, here:

--------------------------->8-------------8<------------------------------
With a postfix decrement timeouts will reach -1 rather than 0, so
the error path does not appear.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email-masked]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/smsc911x.c b/drivers/net/smsc911x.c
index 783c1a7..9a78dae 100644
--- a/drivers/net/smsc911x.c
+++ b/drivers/net/smsc911x.c
@@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int smsc911x_eeprom_send_cmd(struct smsc911x_data *pdata, u32 op)
 	do {
 		msleep(1);
 		e2cmd = smsc911x_reg_read(pdata, E2P_CMD);
-	} while ((e2cmd & E2P_CMD_EPC_BUSY_) && (timeout--));
+	} while ((e2cmd & E2P_CMD_EPC_BUSY_) && (--timeout));
 
 	if (!timeout) {
 		SMSC_TRACE(DRV, "TIMED OUT");