On Wednesday 16 September 2020 13:11:59 CEST Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:47:19AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > > > > Reviewing sram_write_dma_safe(), there are two > > identical calls to virt_addr_valid(). The second > > call can be simplified by a comparison of variables > > set from the first call. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c > > index 22d3b684f04f..c99adb0c99f1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c > > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static int sram_write_dma_safe(struct wfx_dev *wdev, u32 > > addr, const u8 *buf, > > tmp = buf; > > } > > ret = sram_buf_write(wdev, addr, tmp, len); > > - if (!virt_addr_valid(buf)) > > + if (tmp != buf) > > kfree(tmp); > > return ret; > > } > > Jerome, any thoughts?
Looks correct. Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouil...@silabs.com> -- Jérôme Pouiller _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
