On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:31:54AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:08 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > "Dan Carpenter" <error27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >The "qc->scsicmd" could be null so I moved the dereference inside the > > >check. This was introduced by 70b25f890: "[SCSI] fix locking around > > >blk_abort_request()" > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Ooh.. right. > > > > Asked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Well, oops, yes. Two patches to fix one bug is a bit overboard, I > think, plus some code rearrangement to fix the locality of the problem > and ensure it doesn't happen again might be useful. What about this. > Looks good. Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> regards, dan carpenter -- 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
