[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2026011219-companion-shakiness-da9e@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:01:30 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Thomas Fourier <fourier.thomas@...il.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com,
Duane Grigsby <duane.grigsby@...vell.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Larry Wisneski <Larry.Wisneski@...vell.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Nilesh Javali <njavali@...vell.com>,
Quinn Tran <qutran@...vell.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: qla2xxx: edif: Fix dma_free_coherent() size
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 03:12:54PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Earlier in the function, the ha->flt buffer is allocated with size
> > sizeof(struct qla_flt_header) + FLT_REGIONS_SIZE but freed in the error
> > path with size SFP_DEV_SIZE.
>
> See also once more:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.19-rc4#n94
>
>
> You should probably not only specify message recipients in the header field “Cc”.
>
>
> …
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c
> > @@ -4489,7 +4489,7 @@ qla2x00_mem_alloc(struct qla_hw_data *ha, uint16_t req_len, uint16_t rsp_len,
> > fail_elsrej:
> > dma_pool_destroy(ha->purex_dma_pool);
> > fail_flt:
> > - dma_free_coherent(&ha->pdev->dev, SFP_DEV_SIZE,
> > + dma_free_coherent(&ha->pdev->dev, sizeof(struct qla_flt_header) + FLT_REGIONS_SIZE,
> > ha->flt, ha->flt_dma);
> …
>
> How do you think about to adjust the indentation another bit for the passed parameters?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?h=v6.19-rc4#n110
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists