On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:18:19 +0100 "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So here cleanup will use NULL pointer for sure, it set set to NULL in > > other path and tested to be NULL in the other. > > Both take usblp->sem, don't they? > But does locking matter when setting a pointer to NULL and then using that NULL pointer as parameter to usb_bugger_free(). So this is not a problem of locking, but setting a pointer to NULL and then using the pointer later (called from same function in usblp_disconnect() or if device was open, then called later in usb_release() function). I cannot understand why usblp->sem has anything to do with this, the code is sequential ? --- Kari H�meenaho ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
