On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:12:46AM +0800, Lin Ma wrote:
> The function rio_karam_init() should return -ENOMEM instead of
> value 0 (USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_GOOD) when allocation fails.
>
> Simlarlly, it should return -EIO when rio_karma_send_command() fails.
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: dfe0d3ba20e8 ("USB Storage: add rio karma eject support")
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/usb/storage/karma.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/storage/karma.c b/drivers/usb/storage/karma.c
> index 05cec81dcd3f..38ddfedef629 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/storage/karma.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/storage/karma.c
> @@ -174,24 +174,25 @@ static void rio_karma_destructor(void *extra)
>
> static int rio_karma_init(struct us_data *us)
> {
> - int ret = 0;
> struct karma_data *data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct karma_data), GFP_NOIO);
>
> if (!data)
> - goto out;
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> data->recv = kmalloc(RIO_RECV_LEN, GFP_NOIO);
> if (!data->recv) {
> kfree(data);
> - goto out;
> + return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> us->extra = data;
> us->extra_destructor = rio_karma_destructor;
> - ret = rio_karma_send_command(RIO_ENTER_STORAGE, us);
> - data->in_storage = (ret == 0);
> -out:
> - return ret;
> + if (rio_karma_send_command(RIO_ENTER_STORAGE, us))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + data->in_storage = 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static struct scsi_host_template karma_host_template;
> --
> 2.35.1
>
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/SubmittingPatches 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
