On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:54:54 +0200, Vitaliy Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 23:54, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>
> > One other small thing. I see you dropped the dev->mtx bracket that
> > I added around the initialization and submission. Notice that the
> > dev->udev is zeroed under dev->mtx, not the static lock. This is because
> > it has to be seen in read and write paths. If you don't like taking
> > across the submission, how about testing for it ahead of time?
>
> I thought it can be managed under static lock.
The paragraph you quoted above explains why dev->udev cannot be managed
under the static lock: because dev->udev is accessed by read/write methods,
which do not take the static lock.
> I'm not sure what kind of testing do you mean by "ahead of time".
No, I meant testing before the rest of the ->open method is executed,
sorry. This part is "ahead of" the rest:
@@ -267,54 +290,54 @@ static int adu_open(struct inode *inode, struct file
*file)
}
dev = usb_get_intfdata(interface);
- if (!dev) {
+ if (!dev || !dev->udev) {
retval = -ENODEV;
goto exit_no_device;
}
Sorry about that. I'll try to be more explicit in the future.
> I just tried the latest patch and all seems to be good.
> BTW, slab corruption issue that I saw on the original driver we started
> fixing on is not an issue any more.
Very well, I'll post this for Greg anew today.
Do you still want to go ahead with a 2.4 backport?
-- Pete
-
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/
