On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 8/1/07, Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/31/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Coverity checker spotted that we have already oops'ed if "fe" was > > NULL. > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvb_frontend.c.old > > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvb_frontend.c > > > @@ -706,11 +706,11 @@ static int dvb_frontend_ioctl(struct ino > > > - if (!fe || fepriv->exit) > > > + if (fepriv->exit) > > > return -ENODEV; > > This issue has been known for a while including some other problems at > that part. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/35351/match=patch+dvb_net+hotplugging+support > > this includes a link where this and more got discussed in May.
For dvb_net_close, I like the patch I already posted better. To fix the check-after-use, it's not "use" part that's the problem, it's the "check" part that isn't necessary. I traced the dvb-net code, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/543689, and I'm sure that dvbdev can't be NULL. My patch also deletes a few pieces of duplicated code by calling dvb_generic_release(). The only problem is that practically no one uses dvb-net, so it's very hard to test these patches. In all the dvb code, were is the locking for device open and release? I don't see it. What is preventing two threads from trying to open and/or close the same dvb device at the same time? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
