Hi Laurent, On 10/25/2012 01:35 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 25 October 2012 11:06:56 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> Make sure there is no v4l2_device_unregister_subdev() call >> on a subdev which wasn't registered. > > I'm not implying that this fix is bad, but doesn't the V4L2 core already > handle this ? v4l2_device_unregister_subdev() returns immediately without > doing anything if the subdev hasn't been registered. Indeed, the patch summary might be a bit misleading and incomplete. I of course wanted to make sure the platform subdevs are not treated as registered when any part of v4l2_device_register_subdev() fails. Looking at function v4l2_device_register_subdev(), I'm wondering whether line 159 sd->v4l2_dev = v4l2_dev; shouldn't be moved right before 190 spin_lock(&v4l2_dev->lock); so sd->v4l2_dev is set only if we return 0 in this function ? Since in function v4l2_device_unregister_subdev() there is a check like 259 /* return if it isn't registered */ 260 if (sd == NULL || sd->v4l2_dev == NULL) 261 return; i.e. if subdev is not really registered, e.g. internal .registered op fails, it should be NULL. In my case sd wasn't null since this structure was embedded in other one. -- Thanks, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
