Hi Thierry,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:12:44AM +0100, Thierry Boureille wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
>
> For "debug" function, I think you're right, it's not really the good
> correction,
> the backtrace gives me following results:
> -------- backtrace --------
> [0]: call_result_func() [gweb.c:436]
> [1]: received_data() [gweb.c:821]
> [2]: main() [main.c:373]
> [3]: _start() [start.S:122]
> ---------------------------
>
> It is under old backtrace format cause my little target has not addr2line and
> other binutils stuff, and the
> line numbers are the ones after applying my proposed patch. Translated to the
> last git commit it should give:
>
> [0]: call_result_func() [gweb.c:432]
> [1]: received_data() [gweb.c:813]
>
> After reading the code again, I'm not confortable with that trace which is
> showing the error on l.813 in "received_data"
> on the "debug" called from "call_result_func" while l.807 a direct call
> should raise an error before:
>
> 807 debug(session->web, "bytes read %zu", bytes_read);
> 808
> 809 if (status != G_IO_STATUS_NORMAL && status != G_IO_STATUS_AGAIN)
> {
> 810 session->transport_watch = 0;
> 811 session->result.buffer = NULL;
> 812 session->result.length = 0;
> 813 call_result_func(session, 0);
> 814 return FALSE;
> 815 }
>
> I'm going to do some more tests to track the pointer value of "session->web"
> and keep you informed if I
> find something relevant
Sounds good, thanks.
I'd take the couple of valid fixes below in the meantime, if you feel up to
building a new patch.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
