[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c873917f-0264-f4c5-3753-dc6a588cfb51@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:25:01 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: emi26: Delete an error message for a failed memory
allocation in emi26_writememory()
>> @@ -42,10 +42,9 @@ static int emi26_writememory (struct usb_device *dev, int address,
>> int result;
>> unsigned char *buffer = kmemdup(data, length, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> - if (!buffer) {
>> - dev_err(&dev->dev, "kmalloc(%d) failed.\n", length);
>
> I guess the length information would not be so easy to find in the backtrace.
Why do you “guess”?
>> + if (!buffer)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> - }
Would we like to achieve another consensus on the data which are provided by
a default Linux allocation failure report?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists