On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Check for the existance of pciob->vport before accessing it.
piocb mispelled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 13 ++++---------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> index 70edf21..134078f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> @@ -1329,15 +1329,10 @@ lpfc_sli_ringtxcmpl_put(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct
> lpfc_sli_ring *pring,
> if ((unlikely(pring->ringno == LPFC_ELS_RING)) &&
> (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_ABORT_XRI_CN) &&
> (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_CLOSE_XRI_CN) &&
> - (!(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))) {
> - if (!piocb->vport)
> - BUG();
Granted the previous code would crash and burn in the if statement prior
to the BUG() assertion if piocb->vport was NULL, but is the condition
!piocb->vport still a bug here? Should that case still be asserted?
-Tyrel
> - else
> - mod_timer(&piocb->vport->els_tmofunc,
> - jiffies +
> - msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * (phba->fc_ratov << 1)));
> - }
> -
> + piocb->vport && !(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))
> + mod_timer(&piocb->vport->els_tmofunc,
> + jiffies +
> + msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * (phba->fc_ratov << 1)));
>
> return 0;
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
