tty/n_gsm.c: fix false positive WARN_ON and do some codes improvement
PATCH 1/1 tty/n_gsm.c: fix false positive WARN_ON and do some codes improvement
From: xinhui <[email protected]>
If gsm driver fails to activate one mux, and this mux is not stored in gsm_mux[], there would be a warning in gsm_cleanup_mux(). Actually this is a legal case. So just do a simple check instead of WARN_ON.
There is one filed gsm->num to store its index of gsm_mux[]. So use gsm->num to remove itself from gsm_mux[] instead of the for-loop traverse.
--- drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 12 +++++------- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/tty/n_gsm.c +5 -7
@@ -2037,15 +2037,13 @@ static void gsm_cleanup_mux(struct gsm_mux *gsm) gsm->dead =1 ; +/* open failed before registering => nothing to do*/ +if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm) +return ; +spin_lock (&gsm_mux_lock); -for (i =0 ; i <MAX_MUX ; i++) { -if (gsm_mux[i] == gsm) { - gsm_mux[i] =NULL ; -break ; - } - } + gsm_mux[gsm->num] =NULL ;spin_unlock (&gsm_mux_lock); -WARN_ON (i ==MAX_MUX );/* In theory disconnecting DLCI 0 is sufficient but for some modems this is apparently not the case. */
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
Hi, Jiri
I made this patch based on your idea. Any modification is welcome. :)
PS. "xinhui" or "xinhui.pan"@linux.vnet.ibm.com are same mail account, both of them are alias.
thanks
xinhui
Quoted 43 lines · xinhui
From: xinhui <[email protected]>
If gsm driver fails to activate one mux, and this mux is not stored in gsm_mux[], there would be a warning in
gsm_cleanup_mux(). Actually this is a legal case. So just do a simple check instead ofWARN_ON.There is one filed
gsm->numto store its index of gsm_mux[]. So usegsm->numto remove itself from gsm_mux[] instead of the for-loop traverse.Reported-by Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>Fixes 5a64096700dc ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open")Signed-off-by Pan Xinhui <[email protected]>--- drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 12 +++++------- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)drivers/tty/n_gsm.c +5
-7@@ -2037,15 +2037,13 @@ static void gsm_cleanup_mux(struct gsm_mux *gsm) gsm->dead =1 ; +/* open failed before registering => nothing to do*/ +if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm) +return ; +spin_lock (&gsm_mux_lock); -for (i =0 ; i <MAX_MUX ; i++) { -if (gsm_mux[i] == gsm) { - gsm_mux[i] =NULL ; -break ; - } - } + gsm_mux[gsm->num] =NULL ;spin_unlock (&gsm_mux_lock); -WARN_ON (i ==MAX_MUX );/* In theory disconnecting DLCI 0 is sufficient but for some modems this is apparently not the case. */
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · xinhui
From: xinhui <[email protected]>
If gsm driver fails to activate one mux, and this mux is not stored in gsm_mux[], there would be a warning in
gsm_cleanup_mux(). Actually this is a legal case. So just do a simple check instead ofWARN_ON.
Quoted 7 lines
There is one filed
gsm->numto store its index of gsm_mux[]. So usegsm->numto remove itself from gsm_mux[] instead of the for-loop traverse.Reported-by Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>Fixes 5a64096700dc ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open")Signed-off-by Pan Xinhui <[email protected]>
the signed-off-by name has to match your from: name :(
Hi, Greg
This patch is dropped, I have created another patch based on Jiri' patch.
Quoted 17 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · xinhui
From: xinhui <[email protected]>
If gsm driver fails to activate one mux, and this mux is not stored in gsm_mux[], there would be a warning in
gsm_cleanup_mux(). Actually this is a legal case. So just do a simple check instead ofWARN_ON.Quoted 7 lines
There is one filed
gsm->numto store its index of gsm_mux[]. So usegsm->numto remove itself from gsm_mux[] instead of the for-loop traverse.Reported-by Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>Fixes 5a64096700dc ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open")Signed-off-by Pan Xinhui <[email protected]>the signed-off-by name has to match your from: name :(