On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:16:10 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
Try changing one thing at a time per patch please.
There's some bugs in here:
- struct config_t dig_in_config[32];
- struct config_t dig_out_config[32];
- struct config_t chan_in_config[32];
- struct config_t chan_out_config[32];
int i;
+ config_data = kmalloc(sizeof(struct config_data_t), GFP_KERNEL);
Shouldn't that be:
config_data = kmalloc(sizeof(struct config_data_t)*32,
GFP_KERNEL);
The new struct already includes the [32]s.
Ah, missed that.
But your other comment about checking the kmalloc is valid. We should
not add new calls to kmalloc that doesn't check, let's not _add_ new
errors to the code :)
Bruce, care to split this up into individual patches, each doing only
one thing, and check for the return value of this call?
thanks,
greg k-h
Sure. Glad to. A little head scratching will be required for the
general cleanups in the .open routing for the kmalloc calls.
There are several different types of formatting errors that I have
addressed. Those can be bundled as one patch?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
