| Message ID | 20211221081042.78799-1-flyingpeng@tencent.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | block/elevator: handle possible null pointer | expand |
On 12/21/21 1:10 AM, Peng Hao wrote: > There is a check for q->tag_set in the front of elevator_get_default, > and there should be a check here too. I always get suspicious when I see patches like that. Is the other check valid? Why does it need to get checked? There's really no meat on the bone in this commit message.
diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c index 1f39f6e8ebb9..b7d0bead680c 100644 --- a/block/elevator.c +++ b/block/elevator.c @@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ static struct elevator_type *elevator_get_default(struct request_queue *q) if (q->tag_set && q->tag_set->flags & BLK_MQ_F_NO_SCHED_BY_DEFAULT) return NULL; - if (q->nr_hw_queues != 1 && + if (q->nr_hw_queues != 1 && q->tag_set && !blk_mq_is_shared_tags(q->tag_set->flags)) return NULL;
There is a check for q->tag_set in the front of elevator_get_default, and there should be a check here too. Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@tencent.com> --- block/elevator.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)