From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:26:32 -0400 Subject: Trial Patch In-Reply-To: <111862.1410324557@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <540E6F3E.60802@gmail.com> <2c423d93-f6a9-4141-a856-6dce6de56599@email.android.com> <59721.1410280833@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <540F6E23.9090508@gmail.com> <87938.1410300222@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <540FA78E.5080400@gmail.com> <105811.1410317573@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <540FBDCA.6010408@gmail.com> <106935.1410318421@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <540FC16B.8040801@gmail.com> <540FCB4E.3080906@gmail.com> <111862.1410324557@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <54103568.4010208@gmail.com> To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On 14-09-10 12:49 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:53:50 -0400, nick said: >> Build Error. Fixed it. I need to really check my patches first :(. > > How many times have you done that now? > >> In addition, I want you to forget about and not reply to any patches >> you known I haven't build tested. > > No, it doesn't work like that. Each broken post counts against you. > >> + if (skb == NULL) { >> + skb_queue_purge(&priv->rtllib->skb_waitQ[TXCMD_QUEUE]); >> + break; >> + } > > Like this one - it's *still* wrong. Because.... > > From: Nicholas Krause > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:12:56 -0400 > > You reposted the same broken patch again. > > Please do the Linux kernel community a favor and seek gainful employment > in the food service industry or similar, where your skills will be more > appreciated. > Here is the correct patch. Nick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-staging-Fix-NULL-check-for-allocating-the-skb-in-r81.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1481 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140910/a09e101e/attachment.bin