Fix PepperGamepadHostTest.WaitForReply

content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc

Index: content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc b/content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc
index 42b1e10821607d112203d281e86698894d2a0f01..bd394d84f793f876cc2f163d99f0ec2244cae30e 100644
--- a/content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc
+++ b/content/browser/gamepad/gamepad_service.cc
@@ -22,23 +22,24 @@ GamepadService* g_gamepad_service = 0;
 GamepadService::GamepadService()
     : num_active_consumers_(0),
       gesture_callback_pending_(false) {
-  SetInstance();
+  SetInstance(this);
 }
 
 GamepadService::GamepadService(scoped_ptr<GamepadDataFetcher> fetcher)
     : provider_(new GamepadProvider(fetcher.Pass())),
       num_active_consumers_(0),
       gesture_callback_pending_(false) {
-  SetInstance();
+  SetInstance(this);
   thread_checker_.DetachFromThread();
 }
 
 GamepadService::~GamepadService() {
+  SetInstance(NULL);
 }
 
-void GamepadService::SetInstance() {
-  CHECK(!g_gamepad_service);
-  g_gamepad_service = this;
+void GamepadService::SetInstance(GamepadService* instance) {
+  CHECK(!!instance != !!g_gamepad_service);

[bajones, 2014/07/08 15:59:00]

This reads really awkwardly, and makes me question if the logic is right. The
check currently ensures that you are going from a NULL service pointer to a
non-NULL one or vica-versa. Is that desired? Is there a reason why
CHECK(instance != g_gamepad_service) isn't appropriate to prevent repeated sets?

+  g_gamepad_service = instance;
 }
 
 GamepadService* GamepadService::GetInstance() {