[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9700f700-a426-31b8-9bb2-20d8bc7f3f01@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 19:33:35 -0500
From: michael.christie@...cle.com
To: mingzhe.zou@...ystack.cn, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
zgrieee@...il.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org, dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn,
zoumingzhe@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: target: fixup incorrect use of 'cpumask_t'
On 5/16/22 12:47 AM, mingzhe.zou@...ystack.cn wrote:
> From: mingzhe <mingzhe.zou@...ystack.cn>
>
> In commit d72d827f2f26, I used 'cpumask_t' incorrectly.
> ```
> void iscsit_thread_get_cpumask(struct iscsi_conn *conn)
> {
> int ord, cpu;
> cpumask_t conn_allowed_cpumask;
> ......
> }
>
> static ssize_t lio_target_wwn_cpus_allowed_list_store(
> struct config_item *item, const char *page, size_t count)
> {
> int ret;
> char *orig;
> cpumask_t new_allowed_cpumask;
> ......
> }
> ```
>
> So, that the correct pattern should be as follows:
> ```
> cpumask_var_t mask;
>
> if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> return -ENOMEM;
> ... use 'mask' here as a ...
> free_cpumask_var(mask);
> ```
>
> Fixes: d72d827f2f26 ("scsi: target: Add iscsi/cpus_allowed_list in configfs")
> Reported-by: Test Bot <zgrieee@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: mingzhe <mingzhe.zou@...ystack.cn>
>
Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists