On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 14:20 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When iwl_txq_update_write_ptr fails, you have a huge problem: the skb is > > linked on the queue, the write_ptr has been incremented, but you pretend > > you can just free it. > > It's not freed it's should be picket in the next round. We should > really return success to mac80211 in case No, it _is_ freed, by the caller, because you always return success to mac80211 anyway and kfree the skb before. And if you didn't return success it'd be just as wrong. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
