Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC in atomic context

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 05:43:08PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 4:18:03 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 03:27:32PM +0100, 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().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > v1->v2: Fix an overlooked error due to an incorrect copy-paste
> > > 	of the sizeof() operator.
> > 
> > What commit does this fix?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> > 
> Sorry, Greg. Please let me know if I understand correctly what you are asking 
> for...
> 
> In v1 I introduced a silly error while copy-pasting "sizeof()" and then I 
> fixed it in v2.
>   
> I think that you mean that I should reword the list of changes from v1 
> because I'm not explaining properly why I submitted v2.
>   
> Is my understanding correct? If so, I have no problem in submitting v3. 

Sorry, no, I mean what commit in the kernel tree is this patch "fixing"?

You should have a "Fixes: " tag in the signed-off-by area of the
changelog so that we know where the problem you are resolving here
originated.

thanks,

greg k-h