On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:58PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> On 12. 05. 2023. 15:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> > > > @@ -1011,6 +1016,11 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> > > > + if (test_fw_config->reqs) {
> > > > + rc = -EBUSY;
> > > > + goto out_bail;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > test_fw_config->reqs =
> > > > vzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct test_batched_req),
> > > > test_fw_config->num_requests, 2));
> > >
> > > I was just thinking, since returning -EBUSY for the case of already allocated
> > > test_fw_config->reqs was your suggestion and your idea, maybe it would be OK
> > > to properly reflect that in Co-developed-by: or Signed-off-by: , but if I
> > > understood well, the CoC requires that I am explicitly approved of those?
> > >
> >
> > If everyone else is okay, let's just apply this as-is. You did all the
> > hard bits.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
>
> If it is OK with you, then I hope I have your Reviewed-by:
>
Wow. Sorry for all the delay on this.
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I'm kinda still uncertain about the proper procedure.
> This certainly isn't "the perfect patch" :-)
Heh.
regards,
dan carpenter
