On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:57:37AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:07:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > if ((pstrNetworkInfo == NULL)
> > || (pstrWFIDrv->strWILC_UsrScanReq.pfUserScanResult ==
> > NULL)) {
> > - WILC_ERRORREPORT(s32Error, WILC_INVALID_ARGUMENT);
> > + return WILC_INVALID_ARGUMENT;
>
> Are you sure about that? Because:
>
> > }
> >
> > /* check whether this network is discovered before */
> > @@ -2365,12 +2365,6 @@ static s32 Handle_RcvdNtwrkInfo(tstrWILC_WFIDrv
> > *drvHandler, tstrRcvdNetworkInfo
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -
> > - WILC_CATCH(s32Error)
> > - {
> > -
> > - }
> > -
> > done:
> > /* Deallocate pstrRcvdNetworkInfo->pu8Buffer which was prevoisuly
> > allocated by the sending thread */
> > if (pstrRcvdNetworkInfo->pu8Buffer != NULL) {
>
> You do a bunch of work here, if that error occurs.
>
> You just changed the logic of this function :(
>
> Please be much more careful when cleaning stuff up like error paths. I
> suggest you redo this whole series, possibly looking at the other set of
> patches that was recently posted to do much this same thing, to verify
> that you really are not breaking anything.
I'll be offline for the next few days, so I'll be able to thoroughfully
review and resend the series only then, unless the other set of patches
will be merged by then.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
