Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Yes, this should be BUG_ON if anything. But I believe it should really
just be removed. It is the sort of thing I tend to add while hacking to
avoid ooopsing more than stricly necessary ;-) And which should go away
once the code is in proper shape.
Will remove.
Bjørn
--
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
