Am Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2002 01:46 schrieb Kari Hameenaho:
> 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 ?
You are right, there's no connection at all.
Currently there's a memory leak on unplugging a printer.
Well, how about saving the usb_device twice in the device descriptor
and use the second save only to free the buffers?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
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
