On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:01:45PM +0900, Chaehyun Lim wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:48:16PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:20:28AM +0900, Chaehyun Lim wrote: > >> > This patch fixes coding style of kmalloc usage found by checkpatch. > >> > CHECK: Prefer kmalloc(sizeof(*new_msg)...) over kmalloc(sizeof(struct message)...) > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Chaehyun Lim <chaehyun.lim@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c | 2 +- > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > >> > index 7107715..c7a60f4 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > >> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ int wilc_mq_send(struct message_queue *mq, > >> > } > >> > > >> > /* construct a new message */ > >> > - new_msg = kmalloc(sizeof(struct message), GFP_ATOMIC); > >> > + new_msg = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_msg), GFP_ATOMIC); > >> > >> This checkpatch error was introduced by 1/27 patch of this series. Maybe > >> it will be better to fix it in that one. > > > > The warning was introduced there but the issue went back further it's > > just that checkpatch didn't detect it because of other issues. This > > seems fine. > > I appreciate for all comment. I will resend it after applying Sudip's review. > That's fine too, but the original way is more correct because it only fixes one thing at a time and is easier to review. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
