On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:10:14PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > (Replying to all now) > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We assume nvec->rx can be NULL earlier so I have added a check here as > > well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > index 3066ee2..c64e069 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev) > > dev_err(nvec->dev, > > "RX buffer overflow on %p: " > > "Trying to write byte %u of %u\n", > > - nvec->rx, nvec->rx->pos, NVEC_MSG_SIZE); > > + nvec->rx, nvec->rx ? nvec->rx->pos : -1, > > + NVEC_MSG_SIZE); > > break; > > default: > > nvec->state = 0; > > In the TX case, we print 0 if nvec->tx is NULL, so using -1 if > nvec->rx is NULL would be inconsistent. Ok. I will resend. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
