On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 14:43 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > What happens if somebody in the future adds another member to the > musb_request structure in front of the .request member? that's exactly my point. > Felipe's change is simply good programming practice (although the patch > description could be improved). yeah, I agree. My bad. > > > $ dmesg > > > [1385484.405684] ===> f (0000000c) is NULL > > > > Hm, interesting... > > Not as interesting as it may appear. The test is backward, so the fact > that the program printed out "is NULL" means the computer thinks f > really is not NULL. Oops, missed the ! in front of f, so here it is: $ dmesg [1397031.963264] ===> f (0000000c) is not NULL So in both cases, the pointer will be considered valid and the gadget driver will fail. -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
