From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:05:39 -0400
Subject: Bug Patch
In-Reply-To: <15552.1410199704@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <540D86B2.6080505@gmail.com>
	<15552.1410199704@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <540E1A23.2040200@gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org



On 14-09-08 02:08 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:36:34 -0400, nick said:
> 
>> Found a bug and attempted to fix it
>>  			sub_skb = dev_alloc_skb(nSubframe_Length + 12);
>> +			if (!sub_skb)
>> +				return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Nick - we've told you before to research this stuff more fully before
> posting patches.  As others have pointed out, there's exactly one caller, who
> wants a different return on error.
> 
> For bonus points - explain why you're returning a -ENOMEM from
> a function that's declared as 'static u8 parse_subframe(...'.
> 
> This is *NOT* how you convince us that you should be allowed anywhere near
> kernel code.
> 
Fixed the patch, and Valdis thanks for the note about reading the code properly first.
Nick 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-staging-Fix-ieee_80211_rx.c-to-check-for-Null-alloca.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1145 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140908/4028da71/attachment.bin