Hi Ulisses,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:22:46AM -0300, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
> > @@ -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?
Sounds good, the only issue is that instead of this simple change we would
have dozens of "if/else".
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
--
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
