Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 May 2023 18:20:37 +0300 | From | Dan Carpenter <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/3] test_firmware: fix a memory leak with reqs buffer |
| |
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:58PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote: > On 12. 05. 2023. 15:09, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote: > > > > @@ -1011,6 +1016,11 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_store(struct device *dev, > > > > mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); > > > > + if (test_fw_config->reqs) { > > > > + rc = -EBUSY; > > > > + goto out_bail; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > test_fw_config->reqs = > > > > vzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct test_batched_req), > > > > test_fw_config->num_requests, 2)); > > > > > > I was just thinking, since returning -EBUSY for the case of already allocated > > > test_fw_config->reqs was your suggestion and your idea, maybe it would be OK > > > to properly reflect that in Co-developed-by: or Signed-off-by: , but if I > > > understood well, the CoC requires that I am explicitly approved of those? > > > > > > > If everyone else is okay, let's just apply this as-is. You did all the > > hard bits. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > If it is OK with you, then I hope I have your Reviewed-by: >
Wow. Sorry for all the delay on this.
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> I'm kinda still uncertain about the proper procedure. > This certainly isn't "the perfect patch" :-)
Heh.
regards, dan carpenter
| |