On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:54 PM, nick <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 14-09-09 08:42 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:22:59AM -0400, nick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14-09-08 11:08 PM, nick wrote:
>>>> I am attaching a trial patch again , please let me known if there are any issues for me to fix.
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>> This patch is wrong, checkpatch errors. I am attaching another fixed version.
>>> Sorry Nick
>>
>>> >From 1d6378589ab97cc646e2a3717413077453e4e80b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 21:30:37 -0400
>>> Subject: [PATCH] staging: Fix Null check for allocating skb in r8192E_firmware.c
>>>
>>> This patch checks in fw_download_code for if the allocated skb is
>>> NULl. Further more if the skb is null and we are in the loop,
>>> clean up and dequeune the skb quenue. In additon return false
>>> directly in the if statement and return true by itself removing
>>> rt_status to improve the code's readablitiy of return statements
>>> in fw_download_code.
>>>
>>
>> lots of spelling mistake .. what is NuLl ?
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c | 7 +++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
>>> index 1a95d1f..6988e1c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c
>>> @@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ static bool fw_download_code(struct net_device *dev, u8 *code_virtual_address,
>>> u32 buffer_len)
>>> {
>>> struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
>>> - bool rt_status = true;
>>> u16 frag_threshold;
>>> u16 frag_length, frag_offset = 0;
>>> int i;
>>> @@ -61,6 +60,10 @@ static bool fw_download_code(struct net_device *dev, u8 *code_virtual_address,
>>> }
>>>
>>> skb = dev_alloc_skb(frag_length + 4);
>>> + if (skb == NULL) {
>>> + skb_dequeue(&priv->rtllib->skb_waitQ[TXCMD_QUEUE]);
>>
>> again checkpatch warning of line over 80 char
>>
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> memcpy((unsigned char *)(skb->cb), &dev, sizeof(dev));
>>> tcb_desc = (struct cb_desc *)(skb->cb + MAX_DEV_ADDR_SIZE);
>>> tcb_desc->queue_index = TXCMD_QUEUE;
>>> @@ -99,7 +102,7 @@ static bool fw_download_code(struct net_device *dev, u8 *code_virtual_address,
>>>
>>> write_nic_byte(dev, TPPoll, TPPoll_CQ);
>>>
>>> - return rt_status;
>>> + return true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static bool CPUcheck_maincodeok_turnonCPU(struct net_device *dev)
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>
> Thanks for the feedback, Guys. I will look over this latter and try and fix it.
> Nick
form the very beginning everyone is asking you to check your patch
with checkpatch and build test it before submitting .. but .. :(
if you are planning to send another patch, can you please include your
checkpatch report in the mail , that will save many people's time over
here .
thanks
sudip
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
