[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <147326177470.26593.5236224443295221904.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:22:54 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next 4/8] rxrpc: Use call->peer rather than
call->conn->params.peer
Use call->peer rather than call->conn->params.peer to avoid the possibility
of call->conn being NULL and, whilst we're at it, check it for NULL before we
access it.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
---
net/rxrpc/call_object.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
index 3166b5222435..060ddc32a85e 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
@@ -514,9 +514,11 @@ void rxrpc_release_call(struct rxrpc_call *call)
*/
_debug("RELEASE CALL %p (%d CONN %p)", call, call->debug_id, conn);
- spin_lock(&conn->params.peer->lock);
- hlist_del_init(&call->error_link);
- spin_unlock(&conn->params.peer->lock);
+ if (call->peer) {
+ spin_lock(&call->peer->lock);
+ hlist_del_init(&call->error_link);
+ spin_unlock(&call->peer->lock);
+ }
write_lock_bh(&rx->call_lock);
if (!list_empty(&call->accept_link)) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists