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:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:43:52 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
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
Message-ID: <YYDsONxzm0ucjC1g@kroah.com>
References: <20211101142732.5638-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
 <YYAFK83uzfBn03D/@kroah.com>
 <2458707.yljdXZV4jf@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2458707.yljdXZV4jf@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 05:43:08PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> 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. 

Sorry, no, I mean what commit in the kernel tree is this patch "fixing"?

You should have a "Fixes: " tag in the signed-off-by area of the
changelog so that we know where the problem you are resolving here
originated.

thanks,

greg k-h