On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > Check for the existance of pciob->vport before accessing it.
>
> piocb mispelled.
Oops
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 13 ++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > index 70edf21..134078f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > @@ -1329,15 +1329,10 @@ lpfc_sli_ringtxcmpl_put(struct lpfc_hba *phba,
> > struct lpfc_sli_ring *pring,
> > if ((unlikely(pring->ringno == LPFC_ELS_RING)) &&
> > (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_ABORT_XRI_CN) &&
> > (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_CLOSE_XRI_CN) &&
> > - (!(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))) {
> > - if (!piocb->vport)
> > - BUG();
>
> Granted the previous code would crash and burn in the if statement prior
> to the BUG() assertion if piocb->vport was NULL, but is the condition
> !piocb->vport still a bug here? Should that case still be asserted?
Yes, you're right. Let me see how to solve it _and_ make the statement a bit
more readable.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
