On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 10:47:38AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:36:37AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted this obvious NULL pointer dereference.
>
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Marcelo,
> Could you explain why you remove the adpt_post_wait_lock acquision?
>
> And if it does not belong there, why don't you remove it instead of
> commeting out?
>...
my patch does remove the following not required line:
> > - p2 = NULL;
It does not touch the following line that was already commented out:
> > // spin_lock_irqsave(&adpt_post_wait_lock, flags);
>...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
