On 11.11.2011 15:09, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Le 11 nov. 2011 à 13:59, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> On 11.11.2011 11:52, Patrik Flykt wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 15:30 +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote: >>>> There are cases where technology->pending_reply is set but the >>>> corresponding technology->pending_timeout not. The technology enabled >>>> was called from the Manager and the device was enabled right away. >>> >>> Patch looks good. Should we be extra suspicious and check the >>> 'if (technology->pending_timeout > 0)' part outside of the >>> 'if (technology->pending_reply != NULL)' block? Or am I being just too >>> paranoid? >> >> Being paranoid sounds reasonable to me :) I'll apply the paranoid >> version then. > Hold on. As you said, you're fixing the symptoms, not the cause. We need to > understand why we don't have a pending timeout while having a pending reply. > Alok is looking at it.
Okay, no problem. Thanks for taking care of it. cheers, daniel _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
