From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpoutuk02.marconi.com ([128.87.251.113]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Dhl3M-0005I5-Gv for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:16:21 -0400 Received: from cvsumailhost.marconicomms.com ([89.1.21.77]) by smtpoutuk02.marconi.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5D9GBXw007653 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:16:13 +0100 (envelope-from Andreas.Engel@marconi.com) Received: from oxia.de.marconicomms.com (oxia.de.marconicomms.com [172.28.41.234]) by gw1000.de.marconicomms.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E870C6D0D for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:16:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from idefix (idefix [172.28.34.108]) by oxia.de.marconicomms.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11925 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:16:09 +0200 (MEST) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:16:07 +0200 From: Andreas Engel To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20050613111607.00002d00@idefix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: concat_unlock List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, has anyone successfully used locking/unlocking on a concatenated mtd device? The function concat_unlock() calls subdev->unlock() without checking the pointers validity first and I couldn't find out where the pointer has been set. Do I have to provide the necessary initialization myself? Regards, Andreas