On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 9:13 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 09:02:35PM +0800, void0red wrote: > > From: Kang Chen <void0red@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This driver uses the unified memory management api, so replace > > kzalloc with devm_kzalloc to avoid a memory leak and add a check > > for this allocation. > > > > Reported-by: eriri <1527030098@xxxxxx> > > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217081 > > > > Signed-off-by: Kang Chen <void0red@xxxxxxxxx> Please remember to send a v2 patch. Otherwise, gregkh's bot will notify you that this is an already-sent patch. > > --- > > drivers/usb/gadget/udc/mv_udc_core.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/mv_udc_core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/mv_udc_core.c > > index b397f3a84..08474c08d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/mv_udc_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/mv_udc_core.c > > @@ -2229,7 +2229,11 @@ static int mv_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&udc->status_req->queue); > > > > /* allocate a small amount of memory to get valid address */ > > - udc->status_req->req.buf = kzalloc(8, GFP_KERNEL); > > + udc->status_req->req.buf = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, 8, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!udc->status_req->req.buf) { > > + retval = -ENOMEM; > > + goto err_destroy_dma; > > + } > > udc->status_req->req.dma = DMA_ADDR_INVALID; > > > > udc->resume_state = USB_STATE_NOTATTACHED; > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > Hi, > > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux > kernel tree. > > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) > as indicated below: > > - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you > did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the > kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what > needs to be done here to properly describe this. > > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received > from other developers. > > thanks, > > greg k-h's patch email bot
