kmallocs with swapped parameters in fs/dlm/lock.c

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>]

Hi David,
  Sparse spotted a couple of places in fs/dlm/lock.c where the size/flags
parameters to kmalloc got swapped:

The sparse output is:
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42:    expected unsigned long [unsigned] [usertype] size
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42:    got restricted gfp_t
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64:    expected restricted gfp_t [usertype] flags
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64:    got unsigned long
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27:    expected unsigned long [unsigned] [usertype] size
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27:    got restricted gfp_t
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39:    expected restricted gfp_t [usertype] flags
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39:    got unsigned long

Line 852 is:
                        warned = kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL, num_nodes * sizeof(int));
Line 4136 is:
        ms_stub = kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL, sizeof(struct dlm_message));

and at least one of the defs of kmalloc is:
slab_def.h:static __always_inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)

Given that I haven't got a clue how to test a dlm, it's probably
best that you patch it.

Jesper:
  I noticed in your patch:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/2/90

where you had done a kmalloc->kzalloc transform you kept the swap.

This looks like new code in 3.0rc so I don't think you could quite
call it a regression, but it should probably be fixed fairly quickly
I guess.

Dave
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/