Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:25:43 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
To:     Pascal Giard <pascal.giard@etsmtl.ca>
cc:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sanjay Govind <sanjay.govind9@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: ghlive: support for ghlive ps3/wii u dongles
In-Reply-To: <20201009022722.123943-1-pascal.giard@etsmtl.ca>
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2010291622380.18859@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <20201009022722.123943-1-pascal.giard@etsmtl.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Pascal Giard wrote:

> This commit introduces the Guitar Hero Live driver which adds support
> for the PS3 and Wii U dongles.

Pascal,

thanks for the patch.

[ ... snip ... ]

> ---
>  drivers/hid/Kconfig      |   6 ++
>  drivers/hid/Makefile     |   1 +
>  drivers/hid/hid-ghlive.c | 220 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Would it make more sense (with respect to how we are structuring/naming 
the hid drivers) to incorporate this into hid-sony (irrespective of 
currently ongoing discussions about actually splitting that driver :) )?

> +static void ghl_magic_poke(struct timer_list *t)
> +{
> +	struct ghlive_sc *sc = from_timer(sc, t, poke_timer);
> +
> +	int ret;
> +	unsigned int pipe;
> +	struct urb *urb;
> +	struct usb_ctrlrequest *cr;
> +	const u16 poke_size =
> +		ARRAY_SIZE(ghl_ps3wiiu_magic_data);
> +	u8 *databuf;
> +
> +	pipe = usb_sndctrlpipe(sc->usbdev, 0);
> +
> +	cr = kzalloc(sizeof(*cr), GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	if (!cr)
> +		goto resched;
> +
> +	databuf = kzalloc(poke_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	if (!databuf) {
> +		kfree(cr);
> +		goto resched;
> +	}
> +
> +	urb = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	if (!urb) {
> +		kfree(databuf);
> +		kfree(cr);
> +		goto resched;


So if one of the allocations above succeeds and a subsequent one fails, 
you're going to try re-allocate all of them next time again, leaking the 
ones that previously succeeded, right?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs