On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:33:27AM +0200, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> Personally, I say the above piece of code is faulty. Refering to a
> pointer after you appearently deleted it, is just very bad programming
> practice.
ACK ;-) And according to our CVS it is lurking around since March 2000.
There are a few similar actions in other portions of the code, but they are
correct (as far I can see...).
> I?d say, fix the usb-uhci file, and do a quick run on all other instances
> of list_del. I think most programmers got it right, or 2.4.10 kernels would
> be coming down all over the planet.
Fix attached. Please apply it.
--
Georg Acher, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.in.tum.de/~acher/
"Oh no, not again !" The bowl of petunias
--- linux/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c.org Thu Sep 27 12:12:39 2001
+++ linux/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c Thu Sep 27 14:06:43 2001
@@ -2528,7 +2528,7 @@
int i;
int ret = 0;
urb_priv_t *urb_priv = urb->hcpriv;
- struct list_head *p = urb_priv->desc_list.next;
+ struct list_head *p = urb_priv->desc_list.next, *p_tmp;
uhci_desc_t *desc = list_entry (urb_priv->desc_list.prev, uhci_desc_t,
desc_list);
dbg("urb contains iso request");
@@ -2578,8 +2578,9 @@
dbg("process_iso: %i: len:%d %08x status:%x",
i, urb->iso_frame_desc[i].actual_length,
le32_to_cpu(desc->hw.td.status),urb->iso_frame_desc[i].status);
- list_del (p);
+ p_tmp = p;
p = p->next;
+ list_del (p_tmp);
delete_desc (s, desc);
}
