On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:53:08 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote
> On 26.2.2009 02:06, Bob Copeland wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c
> > @@ -1140,12 +1140,14 @@ ath5k_rxbuf_setup(struct ath5k_softc *sc, struct
ath5k_buf *bf)
> > struct ath5k_hw *ah = sc->ah;
> > struct sk_buff *skb = bf->skb;
> > struct ath5k_desc *ds;
> > + dma_addr_t dma_addr;
> >
> > if (!skb) {
> > - skb = ath5k_rx_skb_alloc(sc,&bf->skbaddr);
> > + skb = ath5k_rx_skb_alloc(sc,&dma_addr);
> > if (!skb)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > bf->skb = skb;
> > + bf->skbaddr = dma_addr;
>
> Hmm, rather than the caller, ath5k_rx_skb_alloc is wrong here in my
> eyes. It shouldn't touch the second parameter unless it knows it won't
> fail anymore.
Sure, the temporary could go there instead. It's a consequence of my
making ath5k_rx_skb_alloc() as much as possible a straight code move
from the original, which IIRC would also clobber bf->skbaddr on the
error path.
--
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com
_______________________________________________
ath5k-devel mailing list
ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
