linux-kernel - Re: [4/4] mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170320200550.GA12143@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:05:51 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [4/4] mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code

Hi Kalle,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:08:35PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > This code was duplicated as part of the PCIe FLR code added to this
> > driver. Let's de-duplicate it to:
> > 
> >  * make things easier to read (mwifiex_pcie_free_buffers() now has a
> >    corresponding mwifiex_pcie_alloc_buffers())
> >  * reduce likelihood of bugs
> >  * make error logging equally verbose
> >  * save lines of code!
> > 
> > Also drop some of the commentary that isn't really needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> 
> Failed to apply:
> 
> fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c).
> error: could not build fake ancestor
> Applying: mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code
> Patch failed at 0001 mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code
> The copy of the patch that failed is found in: .git/rebase-apply/patch
> 
> Patch set to Changes Requested.

This applies fine to your wireless-drivers/master branch for me, where
patches 1-3 were applied. Are you applying this to
wireless-drivers-next? It's quite understandable that patch 4 wouldn't
apply there, as you've stripped out the previous patches...

Brian