On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <[email protected]> > --- > > diff -u -p a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c > @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static int verify_and_add_patch(unsigned > return -EINVAL; > } > > - patch->data = kzalloc(patch_size, GFP_KERNEL); > + patch->data = kmemdup(fw + SECTION_HDR_SIZE, patch_size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!patch->data) { > pr_err("Patch data allocation failure.\n"); > kfree(patch); > @@ -353,7 +353,6 @@ static int verify_and_add_patch(unsigned > } > > /* All looks ok, copy patch... */ > - memcpy(patch->data, fw + SECTION_HDR_SIZE, patch_size); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&patch->plist); > patch->patch_id = mc_hdr->patch_id; > patch->equiv_cpu = proc_id;
I can see what happens with a little code browsing of the definition of kmemdup but patches without a commit message are most times not a very elegant thing. So please add a nice commit message explaining why you're doing what you're doing. If the coccinelle script is not in the kernel tree, then referring to it doesn't mean a whole lot so don't do it. Rather, explaining why you're doing the change, is a much better thing to do. Thanks. -- 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/
