On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:42:43AM -0700, Jimmy Li wrote:
> fix a sparse warning.
> drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c:1846:35: warning: cast from restricted
> gfp_t
> drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c:1846:35: warning: incorrect type in
> argument 2 (different base types)
> drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c:1846:35: expected restricted gfp_t
> [usertype] flags
> drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c:1846:35: got int [signed] <noident>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jimmy Li <coder.liss@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c
> index ac3fc16..5e25535 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c
> @@ -1843,7 +1843,7 @@ int iwctl_siwencodeext(struct net_device *dev,
> PRINT_K("SIOCSIWENCODEEXT...... \n");
>
> blen = sizeof(*param);
> - buf = kmalloc((int)blen, (int)GFP_KERNEL);
> + buf = kmalloc((int)blen, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (buf == NULL)
> return -ENOMEM;
> memset(buf, 0, blen);
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
You are right, I found that variable buf also don't make sense here,
maybe this could be more clear.
param = kzalloc(sizeof(struct viawget_wpa_param), GFP_KERNEL);
if (param == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
removing two unnecessary variable, buf and blen.
In this situation, I should send a new patch v2 for it base on the
previous path? or send a new patch include all changes?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
