On Wed, Oct 17 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT) > > > sg_next() gives you a NULL after the last entry, but tests have been > > changed to compare against sg_last() which is likely not what we > > want for those checks. > > This of course isn't true, ignore me as I'm still learning how this > new stuff works :-) Righto, it's invalid to call sg_next() on the last entry! Let me know if you need any help with debugging this, unfortunately I cannot test on sparc64 myself... (I can say that easily, since I know that davem will a) not rest until this is fixed, and b) is a really good debugger and will not need my help) -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
