On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:11:45PM +0530, santosh nayak wrote:
>> From: Santosh Nayak <santoshprasadnayak@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Replace kmalloc+memset pair by kzalloc() in 'wl_wds_device_alloc()'.
>> Add error handling to avoid null derefernce.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Nayak <santoshprasadnayak@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/wl_netdev.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/wl_netdev.c b/drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/wl_netdev.c
>> index 9c16f54..426ba04 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/wl_netdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/wl_netdev.c
>> @@ -1511,8 +1511,12 @@ void wl_wds_device_alloc( struct wl_private *lp )
>> for( count = 0; count < NUM_WDS_PORTS; count++ ) {
>> struct net_device *dev_wds = NULL;
>>
>> - dev_wds = kmalloc( sizeof( struct net_device ), GFP_KERNEL );
>> - memset( dev_wds, 0, sizeof( struct net_device ));
>> + dev_wds = kzalloc(sizeof(struct net_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (unlikely(!dev_wds)) {
>
> NEVER use unlikely unless you are working on scheduler code, or
> something else equally time critical. So, take this into consideration,
> and Dan's comments, and please redo this, I can't take it as-is.
>
Greg,
I will include your suggestion and resend it.
Can you please explain whats the disadvantage of having 'unlikely()' here ?
I have seen it at several places in driver side.
regards
Santosh
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
