Am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2012, 00:52:02 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
> @@ -816,7 +855,9 @@ static void wdm_destroy(struct wdm_device *desc)
> static void wdm_disconnect(struct usb_interface *intf)
> {
> struct wdm_device *desc = wdm_get_device(intf);
> - wdm_destroy(desc);
> +
> + if (desc)
> + wdm_destroy(desc);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> @@ -825,6 +866,9 @@ static int wdm_suspend(struct usb_interface *intf, pm_message_t message)
> struct wdm_device *desc = wdm_get_device(intf);
> int rv = 0;
>
> + if (!desc)
> + goto out;
> +
> dev_dbg(&desc->intf->dev, "wdm%d_suspend\n", intf->minor);
>
> /* if this is an autosuspend the caller does the locking */
> @@ -852,6 +896,7 @@ static int wdm_suspend(struct usb_interface *intf, pm_message_t message)
> mutex_unlock(&desc->rlock);
> }
>
> +out:
> return rv;
> }
Upon a closer look, this is a problem. We simply cannot ignore a disconnect() or suspend().
So a code path for doing nothing here must be wrong.
Regards
Oliver
--
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
