On 5/18/23 17:20, Dan Carpenter wrote:
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.
No, not at all. I don't want to be a nag and overwhelm developers. :-)
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org
Thank you.
I suppose this is for 2/3.
Did you consider reviewing the other two patches?
I'm kinda still uncertain about the proper procedure. This certainly isn't "the perfect patch" :-)
Heh.
regards, dan carpenter
Well, I have about come to the limits of CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK setting, with a happy catch of about a dozen bugs, but this is still less than 0.1% of the expected 11,000 bugs for a codebase sized 10.9 million line.
So I am considering the use of a static analysis tool. Like Smatch.
Thank Heavens, most of the code is modular, and about 90% of the functions are static and thereof, of course, having the scope limited to their module.
I am still only catching bugs like memleaks and lockups when they manifest, proactive search for bugs is a new level I suppose.
Best regards, Mirsad