|
RE: Rfcomm use count: msg#00028linux.bluez.devel
Hi Daryl, > I just noticed that bluez_accept_unlink() was called with a socked that was > in state BT_CLOSED, so it can't be the second if(). It would have been > called from the first if(). > > Clearly, I'm on glue. > > Still, does the order of bluez_accept_unlink() and sock_release() matter? I haven't done a full audit yet, but try to switch the order and see what happens. From a first look at it it makes sense to only release the socket when all the work is done, because otherwise lock_sock() makes no sense. Regards Marcel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: freeing skbuff in l2cap_chan_send: 00028, Aaron Klish |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | CardServices PCMCIA changed?: 00028, abhay b |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Rfcomm use counti: 00028, Daryl Van Vorst |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Rfcomm use count: 00028, Daryl Van Vorst |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |