On 12/2/2014 10:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On 12/1/2014 7:50 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Thus in order to avoid a NULL dereference
in cma_id->qp->qp_context we destroy the qp after we destroy the
cm_id (and make the dereference safe).
Wouldn't it be more correct to reverse the order between this patch and
the preceding one?
I guess it would... would it make more sense to squash them together?
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
