Re: [PATCH] Checks for Null return of skb_alloc in function fw_download_code

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:53:00PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
> index 11e915e..fde17ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
> @@ -62,12 +62,15 @@ static bool fw_download_code(struct net_device *dev, u8 *code_virtual_address,
>  
>  		skb  = dev_alloc_skb(frag_length + 4);
> +		if (!skb) {
> +				rt_status = false;
> +				return rt_status;
> +
> +		}

Why 2 tabs for indentation?  Does that look correct?

>  		memcpy((unsigned char *)(skb->cb), &dev, sizeof(dev));
>  		tcb_desc = (struct cb_desc *)(skb->cb + MAX_DEV_ADDR_SIZE);
>  		tcb_desc->queue_index = TXCMD_QUEUE;
>  		tcb_desc->bCmdOrInit = DESC_PACKET_TYPE_INIT;
>  		tcb_desc->bLastIniPkt = bLastIniPkt;
> -		}
>  
>  		seg_ptr = skb->data;
>  		for (i = 0; i < frag_length; i += 4) {

Also, this patch still fails to apply, what tree did you make it
against?  A "clean" 3.16-rc1 tree, or your own tree with other changes
in it?

greg k-h