From: Cong Wang
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:34:26 -0800
> First, the check of &q->ring.queue against NULL is wrong, it
> is always false. We should check the value rather than the address.
>
> Secondly, we need the same check in pfifo_fast_reset() too,
> as both ->reset() and ->destroy() are calle
On 12/18/2017 08:31 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:58 PM, John Fastabend
> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 06:20 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:25 PM, John Fastabend
>>> wrote:
On 12/18/2017 02:34 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> First, the check of &q->ring.queue aga
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:58 PM, John Fastabend
wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 06:20 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:25 PM, John Fastabend
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2017 02:34 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
First, the check of &q->ring.queue against NULL is wrong, it
is always false. We sh
On 12/18/2017 06:20 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:25 PM, John Fastabend
> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 02:34 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> First, the check of &q->ring.queue against NULL is wrong, it
>>> is always false. We should check the value rather than the address.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:25 PM, John Fastabend
wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 02:34 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> First, the check of &q->ring.queue against NULL is wrong, it
>> is always false. We should check the value rather than the address.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Secondly, we need the same check in pfifo_fas
On 12/18/2017 02:34 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> First, the check of &q->ring.queue against NULL is wrong, it
> is always false. We should check the value rather than the address.
>
Thanks.
> Secondly, we need the same check in pfifo_fast_reset() too,
> as both ->reset() and ->destroy() are called in