Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:27:06 -0700, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Venkateswararao Jujjuri <jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/9p/client.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
>> index dc6f2f2..aa7be29 100644
>> --- a/net/9p/client.c
>> +++ b/net/9p/client.c
>> @@ -1201,6 +1201,12 @@ int p9_client_clunk(struct p9_fid *fid)
>> struct p9_client *clnt;
>> struct p9_req_t *req;
>>
>> + if (!fid) {
>> + P9_EPRINTK(KERN_WARNING, "Trying to clunk with NULL fid\n");
>> + dump_stack();
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> P9_DPRINTK(P9_DEBUG_9P, ">>> TCLUNK fid %d\n", fid->fid);
>> err = 0;
>> clnt = fid->clnt;
>
> But why ? We should not have called clunk on null fid. Do you see any
> area of code that can do this ? Or is it a debug patch that you did when
> developing other features. In case of later do we need to merge this
> upstream ?
It is kind of debug patch..as we don't know any known case, assuming that the
v9fs_dir_release()
goes into mainline.
It will be nice if merged into upstream..but not an absolute requirement.
Thanks,
JV
>
> -aneesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
