On 13 March 2003 20:56, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:25AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > | Ok, so please consider applying this patch instead (appies to
> > | both 2.4 and 2.5)
>
> Ok, here's the one with spelling fix from Randy ;)
>
> Bye,
> Oleg
>
> ===== drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c 1.9 vs edited =====
> --- 1.9/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c Wed Jan 8 18:26:13 2003
> +++ edited/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c Thu Mar 13 21:55:08 2003
> @@ -1318,7 +1318,9 @@
> while(*status == 0){
> if(time_after(jiffies,timeout)){
> printk(KERN_WARNING"%s: IOP Reset Timeout\n",pHba->name);
> - kfree(status);
> + /* We lose 4 bytes of "status" here, but we cannot
> + free these because controller may awake and corrupt
> + those bytes at any time */
I'd leave kfree() inside the comment - less effort for those
operating under -ENOCAFFEINE condition
/* do NOT do kfree(status): we lose ....
I don't like the whole idea that mem leak is tolerable.
Can we just add a 4 byte scratch pad status to
struct _adpt_hba? Let it scribble there...
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:38 EST