Re: [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC in atomic context

["Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>]

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:38:35 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 12:43:51PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Monday, November 1, 2021 8:18:47 PM CET Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > Use the GFP_ATOMIC flag of kzalloc() with two memory allocation in
> > > report_del_sta_event(). This function is called while holding 
spinlocks,
> > > therefore it is not allowed to sleep. With the GFP_ATOMIC type flag, 
the
> > > allocation is high priority and must not sleep.
> > > 
> > > This issue is detected by Smatch which emits the following warning:
> > > "drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:6848 
report_del_sta_event()
> > > warn: sleeping in atomic context".
> > > 
> > > After the change, the post-commit hook output the following message:
> > > "CHECK: Prefer kzalloc(sizeof(*pcmd_obj)...) over
> > > kzalloc(sizeof(struct cmd_obj)...)".
> > > 
> > > According to the above "CHECK", use the preferred style in the first
> > > kzalloc().
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 79f712ea994d ("staging: r8188eu: Remove wrappers for kalloc() 
and 
> > kzalloc()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > > ---

> > > [...]

> > Please let me know if there is something that prevents this patch to be 
> > applied. I have no problem in changing / adding whatever it is needed.
> 
> Nothing needs to be done, I am waiting for 5.16-rc1 to be released
> before I pick up this patch, and others that will be targeted for
> 5.16-final.  Only then will I queue them up, as the automated email you
> should have gotten when you submitted the patch said would happen.
> 
> Just relax, there is no rush here :)
> 

Oh, sorry Greg. There must be something that I haven't understand about the 
development process... :(

Obviously I agree that there is no rush here :)

As I said, this morning I read git log and saw patches that seemed more 
recent; thus I thought that was the case to ask. I just (wrongly) thought 
that the v3 of the patch got unnoticed or dropped  because of some requests  
that I had missed. 

Thanks for the explanation,

Fabio

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>