On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:05:06PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > > Thanks! It occurs to me that another way to detect this bug is that > > one of the allocations in this function already uses GFP_ATOMIC. It > > doesn't normally make sense to mix GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL when there > > isn't any locking in the function. > > Yes, this pattern is interesting for bug finding :) > But to fix the bugs of this pattern, we need to decide whether GFP_ATOMIC or > GFP_KERNEL should be used here. >
Sure. But either way it's a bug. Plus this would be the first static checker warning which warns about using GFP_ATOMIC when it's supposed to be GFP_KERNEL. #milestone regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
