On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:00:57 -0500
Steve French wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:28:01 -0500
> > Steve French wrote:
> >
> >> null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
> >> code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
> >> check f
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:28:01 -0500
> Steve French wrote:
>
>> null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
>> code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
>> check for null (if at all) before derefrencing
>> rather than after.
>>
>> Re
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:28:01 -0500
Steve French wrote:
> null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
> code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
> check for null (if at all) before derefrencing
> rather than after.
>
> Reported by Coverity (CID 1042666)
>
> Signed-off-by: Steve Fren
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 00:28 -0500, Steve French wrote:
> null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
> code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
> check for null (if at all) before derefrencing
> rather than after.
>
> Reported by Coverity (CID 1042666)
>
> Signed-off-by: Steve French
Looks correct.
Acked-by: Shirish Pargaonkar
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Steve French wrote:
> null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
> code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
> check for null (if at all) before derefrencing
> rather than after.
>
> Reported by Coverity
null tcon is not likely in these paths in current
code, but obviously it does clarify the code to
check for null (if at all) before derefrencing
rather than after.
Reported by Coverity (CID 1042666)
Signed-off-by: Steve French
---
fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c | 13 -
1 file changed, 8 insertio
6 matches
Mail list logo