On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > OK Now I see isd200_ata_command() is called from a usb.c internal thread. > > What I need to do is call scsi_get_command(scsi_device*) on first invocation. Why? > Now for the call to scsi_put_command()? At the time of the call to > isd200_free_info_ptrs() do you think I still have a valid scsi_device at this point? Definitely not. > What I will do is this. I will resend my original patch with your comments > fixed. This is for the 2.6.25-rc. And I will send another patch that uses > the proper scsi_get/put_command() for testing and inclusion into the 2.6.26 kernel. > Please ACK on the patch Okay. > > Yes. The three lines of code there are unnecessary. You should remove > > them (and the comment) instead of adding more somewhere else. Or if > > you want to keep them, just add a line to kfree(us->extra) before > > us->extra is set to NULL. > > How are they unnecessary? who will free them? other wise they will only be > freed at the very end. That's what I meant. > And that is only because usb_stor_transparent_scsi_command() > does not need any us->extra of it's own. But if ever it will, then this code > buried here will become a leak. Any additional resources needed by the transparent-SCSI handler will be added directly into the main us_data structure; they won't be part of us->extra. That hook was meant specifically for use by the nonstandard subdrivers. But on the whole you are right, and I agree with the change in your follow-up patch. Alan Stern -- 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
