Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 11:39:06 schrieb Ajay Kumar Gupta:
> +struct queue *create(void)
> +{
> + struct queue *new;
> + new = kmalloc(sizeof(struct queue), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!new)
> + return NULL;
> + new->next = NULL;
> + return new;
> +}
> +void push_queue(struct musb *musb, struct urb *urb)
> +{
> + struct queue *new, *temp;
> +
> + new = create();
> + new->urb = urb;
And you happily follow the NULL pointer in the error case.
> +
> + temp = musb->qhead;
> +
> + spin_lock(&musb->qlock);
> + while (temp->next != NULL)
> + temp = temp->next;
> + temp->next = new;
> + spin_unlock(&musb->qlock);
> +}
A design allocating memory in giveback is problematic. At least you need
to handle a failure to allocate memory. But you'd better handle this by putting
the list into the private part of the URB.
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
