On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:55 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:55:47AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > @@ -1824,6 +1817,15 @@ static int r871x_wx_set_enc_ext(struct net_device *dev, > > > default: > > > return -EINVAL; > > > } > > > + > > > + param_len = sizeof(struct ieee_param) + pext->key_len; > > > + param = (struct ieee_param *)_malloc(param_len); > > > > While you are here could you substitute _malloc by kzalloc and remove > > explicit casting and memset? > > > > Normally, that's the kind of thing we would do in a separate patch > because or the "one thing per patch" rule. Eventually someone will do a > driver wide replacement of _malloc(). Or if the bug fixer wanted, he > could do it in this patch because it is on the same line and all so it > counts as a "minor closely related change." Either way is fine. > > Another way to say this is that since the _malloc() was there in the > original code and Christian didn't introduce it, then we shouldn't > reject his patch because of it. This is staging code, and there are so > many problems that if you start trying to fix everything you'll just get > lost. > > In my experience v2 patches are much harder to write than v1 patches. > Twice in the past few days I have messed up the subject line in my v2 > patches. I'm not objecting to let green light for it, indeed maybe someone could change all _mallocs & memsets in that code. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
