On 17/08/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The patch titled > CIFS: check for granted memory > has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is > cifs-check-for-granted-memory.patch > > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** > > See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find > out what to do about this > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Subject: CIFS: check for granted memory > From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Add a check for granted memory to prevent possible NULL pointer usage. > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Steven French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > > fs/cifs/sess.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff -puN fs/cifs/sess.c~cifs-check-for-granted-memory fs/cifs/sess.c > --- a/fs/cifs/sess.c~cifs-check-for-granted-memory > +++ a/fs/cifs/sess.c > @@ -372,6 +372,10 @@ CIFS_SessSetup(unsigned int xid, struct > > /* 2000 big enough to fit max user, domain, NOS name etc. */ > str_area = kmalloc(2000, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (str_area == NULL) { > + cifs_small_buf_release(smb_buf); > + return -ENOMEM; > + }
The patch, as such, is fine - not arguing against it, but as a matter of style; don't we usually prefer the "if (!foo)" form over "if (foo == NULL)" ?? -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
