Hi Andrei,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Andrei Emeltchenko
<Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> index 779f819..e8855cc 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> @@ -212,9 +212,13 @@ static inline void l2cap_state_change(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int state, int er
> {
> struct sock *sk = chan->sk;
>
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + if (sk)
> + lock_sock(sk);
> +
> __l2cap_state_change(chan, state, err);
> - release_sock(sk);
> +
> + if (sk)
> + release_sock(sk);
> }
>
> void __l2cap_chan_set_err(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int err)
> --
> 1.7.9.1
Well, this doesn't look good, does it? Wouldn't make sense to call
__l2cap_state_change() where we know sk doesn't exist and
l2cap_state_change() in the others? After all the separation between
chan and sk is something we need to have as much clear as possible
from now on, right?
Regards,
--
Ulisses Furquim
ProFUSION embedded systems
http://profusion.mobi
Mobile: +55 19 9250 0942
Skype: ulissesffs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
