Hi, On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Blaise Gassend <blaise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Acked-by: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00dev.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00dev.c >>> index a5c7a4f..b6822cd 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00dev.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00dev.c >>> @@ -483,6 +483,10 @@ void rt2x00lib_rxdone(struct queue_entry *entry) >>> unsigned int header_length; >>> int rate_idx; >>> >>> + if (!test_bit(DEVICE_STATE_PRESENT, &rt2x00dev->flags) || >>> + !test_bit(DEVICE_STATE_ENABLED_RADIO, &rt2x00dev->flags)) >>> + goto submit_entry; >>> + >>> if (test_bit(ENTRY_DATA_IO_FAILED, &entry->flags)) >>> goto submit_entry; >>> >> >> Could these two if statements be combined? They can, but I wanted the separation for clarity, the first if-statement checks the device state, while the second if-statement is for the frame itself. > I'm also worried that the crash may still happen when the second if > causes a jump. So far I am still getting crashes with this patch in. I don't see how this could cause a crash, I know there are still issues around this function, but how can the usage of 2 if-statement cause a crash? Ivo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
