From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73A6C282DA for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8461A20693 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1555701741; bh=zmMx37s3JzOIhq08bbXup23KSsDRHNtGTeN8Y7kENLY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=F984QsPtztCDSHKHg2E57+Ru5FLZbqq98ozeXDz/SSV1t4WFNfOrp/M+25PmkFkc8 qgZs8ZyFabWc6gOfxtlvW9Vgn2rNlpGL4ngmwfPmLqDJVuJApnip55PgehzPrJGyOh dRl7ZmfhJ2OwrIjZ/mR5ajiUACilFqg4gmUA2lsg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727337AbfDSTWU (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:22:20 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47968 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726164AbfDSTWT (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:22:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB45120693; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:22:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1555701739; bh=zmMx37s3JzOIhq08bbXup23KSsDRHNtGTeN8Y7kENLY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=tUliQfqqusHljxjzAsXggQ66GvJfbwxhXehq94e5SvJQT9sJuSheKERmVdsX+Qari kJTM8wAnaI7gfBfNs77BdXIluL9GiEHpS/a7F1CX6B5WhrbB0/7Jc1r1fyt4RKYL8j VYR/GjPcFnbSRPV6SkJURROYTEY48WWn5hYD5Evk= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:22:17 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Bhanusree Mahesh Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: core: Replace rtw_malloc with kmalloc Message-ID: <20190419192217.GB11144@kroah.com> References: <1555669363-19782-1-git-send-email-bhanusreemahesh@gmail.com> <20190419112232.GB14886@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 07:02:47PM +0530, Bhanusree Mahesh wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 16:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 03:52:43PM +0530, Bhanusree Pola wrote: > > > Replace rtw_malloc with kmalloc to make code OS independent > > > use kmalloc second argument as GFP_ATOMIC as these are called by functions > > > that holds lock. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhanusree Pola > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c > > > index 18fabf5..6a6683c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c > > > @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static void update_BCNTIM(struct adapter *padapter) > > > } > > > > > > if (remainder_ielen > 0) { > > > - pbackup_remainder_ie = rtw_malloc(remainder_ielen); > > > + pbackup_remainder_ie = kmalloc(remainder_ielen,GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > Always run checkpatch.pl on your patches so you do nto get grumpy > > maintainers telling you to run checkpatch.pl on your code :) > > > > > Why not fix up all of the callers of this function? > > There are many callers of this function. Should I send the whole thing > as of patch series? Yes, that would be good. > >And are you sure > > that GFP_ATOMIC is the correct thing to do here? > > yes, because it is called by the function which holds the lock. What lock? > correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know, but you should document why you did it this way in the changelog comment so that people can review it. thanks, greg k-h