* Myles Watson <[email protected]> [110110 14:29]: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Sven Schnelle <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Myles Watson" <[email protected]> writes: > > > >>> diff --git a/src/devices/device_util.c b/src/devices/device_util.c > >>> index 9081a36..d761cba 100644 > >>> --- a/src/devices/device_util.c > >>> +++ b/src/devices/device_util.c > >>> @@ -583,8 +583,9 @@ void search_bus_resources(struct bus *bus, unsigned > >>> long type_mask, > >>> if (subbus->link_num > >>> == > >> IOINDEX_SUBTRACTIVE_LINK(res->index)) > >>> break; > >>> - search_bus_resources(subbus, type_mask, > >> type, > >>> - search, gp); > >>> + if (subbus) > >>> + search_bus_resources(subbus, > >> type_mask, > >>> type, > >>> + search, gp); > >>> continue; > >>> } > >>> search(gp, curdev, res); > >> > >> If subbus is NULL, then accessing subbus->link_num is also a problem. > > > > That doesn't happen, because the if (subbus... is in the for loop, which > > checks for NULL. the search_bus_resources() is always called outside the > > for loop. > You're right. I should have looked at the code first, instead of just > the patch. There wasn't enough context. > > If there is no bus there, maybe the resource shouldn't be subtractive. > Maybe we should print a message when that happens so that we can fix > the problem.
What would cause it to be subtractive? We should print an error message if this occurs, but be should also react sanely. How do we proceed? -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
