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;
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC in atomic context
Date:   Mon, 01 Nov 2021 17:43:08 +0100
Message-ID: <2458707.yljdXZV4jf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <YYAFK83uzfBn03D/@kroah.com>
References: <20211101142732.5638-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <YYAFK83uzfBn03D/@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, November 1, 2021 4:18:03 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 03:27:32PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > Use the GFP_ATOMIC flag of kzalloc() with two memory allocation in
> > report_del_sta_event(). This function is called while holding spinlocks,
> > therefore it is not allowed to sleep. With the GFP_ATOMIC type flag, the
> > allocation is high priority and must not sleep.
> > 
> > This issue is detected by Smatch which emits the following warning:
> > "drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:6848 report_del_sta_event()
> > warn: sleeping in atomic context".
> > 
> > After the change, the post-commit hook output the following message:
> > "CHECK: Prefer kzalloc(sizeof(*pcmd_obj)...) over
> > kzalloc(sizeof(struct cmd_obj)...)".
> > 
> > According to the above "CHECK", use the preferred style in the first
> > kzalloc().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > v1->v2: Fix an overlooked error due to an incorrect copy-paste
> > 	of the sizeof() operator.
> 
> What commit does this fix?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
Sorry, Greg. Please let me know if I understand correctly what you are asking 
for...

In v1 I introduced a silly error while copy-pasting "sizeof()" and then I 
fixed it in v2.
  
I think that you mean that I should reword the list of changes from v1 
because I'm not explaining properly why I submitted v2.
  
Is my understanding correct? If so, I have no problem in submitting v3. 

Thank you in advance, 

Fabio

P.S.: I had to resend this email and I want apologize for the noise. It seems 
that it contained HTML parts and for this reasons it was rejected by the 
relevant lists.