On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:40:39PM +0100, adnan ali wrote:
> On 06/06/12 13:16, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:48:41PM +0100, Adnan Ali wrote:
> >> prev = NULL;
> >>+ pslic_handle = NULL;
> >> tail = cmd;
> >> while ((cmdcnt< SLIC_CMDQ_CMDSINPAGE)&&
> >> (adapter->slic_handle_ix< 256)) {
> >> /* Allocate and initialize a SLIC_HANDLE for this command */
> >>- SLIC_GET_SLIC_HANDLE(adapter, pslic_handle);
> >>+ slic_get_slic_handle(adapter, pslic_handle);
> >> if (pslic_handle == NULL)
> >> ASSERT(0);
> >With your change we will always hit this assert. :/
> >
> >Gar... I don't know what to say. This is the second fairly basic
> >bug I've found in your cleanup patches today.
> >
> >I try to explain to people that it's better to send bug fix patches
> >than cleanup patches. If you try to fix a bug and you accidentally
> >introduce a bug then it evens out. If you send a cleanup patch and
> >it introduces a bug, then it is only downside. Please fix bugs for
> >a bit and don't send more cleanup patches. That's my advice.
> >
> >> ASSERT(pslic_handle ==
> >regards,
> >dan carpenter
> Hi Dan
>
> The function slic_get_slic_handle() initialises
>
> pslic_handle = padapter->pfree_slic_handles;
>
> before executing
>
> ASSERT(pslic_handle == NULL)
>
You would need to pass a pointer to a pointer for that to work.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
