Hi John On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, John W. Linville wrote: > Well, you weren't interested in making the minor change suggested > by Julian. So I set it aside with the intent of making the change > myself, then neglected to follow through. :-( I'll try to get to > that today. Or, feel free to submit a new version yourself. I didn't neglect, I explained, why I considered his suggestion not necessarily an improvement. If there were several votes for that change, or if it were a maintainer, who requested the change - I would consider obeying, but this time it was just an opinion of one developer against that of another. Thanks Guennadi > John > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:29:13AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > Hi > > > > I haven't seen this patch going into any tree or being included in any > > pull request. What's the status? > > > > Thanks > > Guennadi > > > > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > Hi Julian > > > > > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Julian Calaby wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Guennadi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 22:58, Guennadi Liakhovetski > > > > <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > An Oops has once been observed, when the SDIO card had been ejected during > > > > > IO. The PC value shows, that the dev pointer in b43_op_stop() was NULL. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Might also be good for stable > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c | 3 +++ > > > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c > > > > > index 5634d9a..3849c25 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c > > > > > @@ -4834,6 +4834,9 @@ static void b43_op_stop(struct ieee80211_hw *hw) > > > > > cancel_work_sync(&(wl->beacon_update_trigger)); > > > > > > > > > > mutex_lock(&wl->mutex); > > > > > + if (!dev) > > > > > + goto out_unlock; > > > > > > > > Is there any reason to take this mutex, then jump to a label that > > > > releases it immediately? > > > > > > > > Would it be better to add a new label after the mutex_unlock() below > > > > and jump to there immediately after the cancel_work_sync() call above? > > > > > > The reason is exactly that: to avoid adding one more label. It is an > > > exceptional case, that that branch would be taken, so, there's no reason > > > to optimize for it. Whereas adding one label would clutter the code > > > needlessly, IMHO. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Guennadi > > > --- > > > Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. > > > Freelance Open-Source Software Developer > > > http://www.open-technology.de/ > > > > > > > --- > > Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. > > Freelance Open-Source Software Developer > > http://www.open-technology.de/ > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you > linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. > --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
