lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-05-18 17:21    [W:4.535 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site