From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: doug.lkml@gmail.com (Doug Wilson)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:15:28 +0530
Subject: Bug Patch
In-Reply-To: <CADVatmNu-L6sgyDOGMapOHrxGc=8O3K=9DGT0NrAK2ibsP+JLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <540D86B2.6080505@gmail.com>
	<CAEZM=bPXN1fJ_rAt69exHYB9_YEocRNmrpSyVdFwe_Q4zdCxRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADVatmNu-L6sgyDOGMapOHrxGc=8O3K=9DGT0NrAK2ibsP+JLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALY8T6pA1fThGXSTnL_kYgWUwBeftW6-kNm2_+1aXFqbu9c9ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

Tobi, Nick,
> I think Nick's patch is regarding dev_alloc_skb(nSubframe_Length + 12) ;
> There is no error check for the return value of dev_alloc_skb  , and
> it can return NULL if it fails and the memory is not allocated.
> I admit return -ENOMEM is wrong , but still I think Nick has found
> something this time.
>

  Nick, the patch you sent is doing the right thing, but like Tobi
mentioned -ENOMEM is wrong.
dev_alloc_skb internally calls __netdev_alloc_skb and the comment on
top of the function says
*%NULL is returned if there is no free memory*. So could you change
the patch accordingly.

for eg: if (sub_skb == NULL)
                       return NULL;

- Doug