From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754032AbaFRSKl (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:10:41 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39759 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752225AbaFRSKk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:10:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:14:39 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Nicholas Krause Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, ben@decadent.org.uk, lisa@xenapiadmin.com, valentina.manea.m@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Checks for Null return of skb_alloc in function fw_download_code Message-ID: <20140618181439.GA8161@kroah.com> References: <1403113980-7587-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1403113980-7587-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:53:00PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause > --- > 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