Matt Mackall wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 18:22 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 03/16/2010 06:12 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> I don't get it. The source of the branch tests for !ndev->npinfo and the
>>> original destination of the branch also tests for !ndev->npinfo. I don't
>>> see how it gets dereferenced.
>> Let's look at more of the context:
>>          if (!ndev->npinfo) {
>>                  npinfo = kmalloc(sizeof(*npinfo), GFP_KERNEL);
>>                  if (!npinfo) {         // npinfo is NULL
>>                          err = -ENOMEM;
>>                          goto release;
>>                  }
>> ...
>> release:                           // npinfo is still NULL
>>          if (!ndev->npinfo) {       // condition is the same (holds)
>>               // dereference below: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>>                  spin_lock_irqsave(&npinfo->rx_lock, flags);
>>                  list_for_each_entry_safe(npe, tmp, &npinfo->rx_np, rx) {
>>                          npe->dev = NULL;
>>                  }
>>                  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&npinfo->rx_lock, flags);
>>
>>                  kfree(npinfo);
>>          }
> 
> Ok, you're correct, I read the second test backwards.
> 
> Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
> 

Thanks for fixing this and sorry for not being responsive, obviously it
sucks when you have a broken leg and German hospitals do not really have
Internet access ... ;)

Thanks,
Daniel