On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:58:14PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:55:02 +0200
> >
> > Return directly after a memory allocation failed at the beginning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c | 19 +++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> > index 3622fba..9b954cb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> > @@ -713,10 +713,8 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_update_index(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, u32 index)
> > unsigned char *data_buf;
> >
> > data_buf = kmalloc(sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!data_buf) {
> > - rc = 1;
> > - goto error_out;
> > - }
> > + if (!data_buf)
> > + return 1;
>
> One could rather wonder why the function has such strange error values...
Agreed. Markus, can you check if we can use -ENOMEM in those places.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
