On 31/10/14 14:52, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +0000, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: >> From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> >> >> If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then the error path would try >> to >> clean up all rings including those that had not yet been allocated. The ring >> clean up code did a check that the ring was valid before starting its work. >> Unfortunately, that was after it had already dereferenced the ring to obtain >> a >> dev_private pointer. >> >> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > > This looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lesp...@intel.com>
And simpler than the version I previously posted, as that would have had to have another test added for each new ring in future hardware. However I think the description above is slightly misleading, as the problem wasn't dereferencing "ring" but "ring->dev". "ring" is always non-NULL (it's the address of a member of an array inside dev_priv), but the backpointer "ring->dev" is only filled in during ring initialisation. .Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
