There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
calls. The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make
it in for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for
v5.8 since we have it ready. We are planning on the rest of the work
for extending the SafeSetID LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge
window.
This patch was sent to the security mailing list and there were no objections.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=I+0L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux
Pull SafeSetID update from Micah Morton:
"Add additional LSM hooks for SafeSetID
SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
calls.
The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make it in
for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for v5.8
since we have it ready.
We are planning on the rest of the work for extending the SafeSetID
LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge window"
* tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux:
security: Add LSM hooks to set*gid syscalls
The SafeSetID LSM uses the security_task_fix_setuid hook to filter
set*uid() syscalls according to its configured security policy. In
preparation for adding analagous support in the LSM for set*gid()
syscalls, we add the requisite hook here. Tested by putting print
statements in the security_task_fix_setgid hook and seeing them get hit
during kernel boot.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Cedeno <thomascedeno@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=5S0s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'for-5.8-part2-tag' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux
Pull btrfs updates from David Sterba:
"This reverts the direct io port to iomap infrastructure of btrfs
merged in the first pull request. We found problems in invalidate page
that don't seem to be fixable as regressions or without changing iomap
code that would not affect other filesystems.
There are four reverts in total, but three of them are followup
cleanups needed to revert a43a67a2d7 cleanly. The result is the
buffer head based implementation of direct io.
Reverts are not great, but under current circumstances I don't see
better options"
* tag 'for-5.8-part2-tag' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux:
Revert "btrfs: switch to iomap_dio_rw() for dio"
Revert "fs: remove dio_end_io()"
Revert "btrfs: remove BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK"
Revert "btrfs: split btrfs_direct_IO to read and write part"
Pull networking fixes from David Miller:
1) Fix cfg80211 deadlock, from Johannes Berg.
2) RXRPC fails to send norigications, from David Howells.
3) MPTCP RM_ADDR parsing has an off by one pointer error, fix from
Geliang Tang.
4) Fix crash when using MSG_PEEK with sockmap, from Anny Hu.
5) The ucc_geth driver needs __netdev_watchdog_up exported, from
Valentin Longchamp.
6) Fix hashtable memory leak in dccp, from Wang Hai.
7) Fix how nexthops are marked as FDB nexthops, from David Ahern.
8) Fix mptcp races between shutdown and recvmsg, from Paolo Abeni.
9) Fix crashes in tipc_disc_rcv(), from Tuong Lien.
10) Fix link speed reporting in iavf driver, from Brett Creeley.
11) When a channel is used for XSK and then reused again later for XSK,
we forget to clear out the relevant data structures in mlx5 which
causes all kinds of problems. Fix from Maxim Mikityanskiy.
12) Fix memory leak in genetlink, from Cong Wang.
13) Disallow sockmap attachments to UDP sockets, it simply won't work.
From Lorenz Bauer.
* git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net: (83 commits)
net: ethernet: ti: ale: fix allmulti for nu type ale
net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-nuss: fix ale parameters init
net: atm: Remove the error message according to the atomic context
bpf: Undo internal BPF_PROBE_MEM in BPF insns dump
libbpf: Support pre-initializing .bss global variables
tools/bpftool: Fix skeleton codegen
bpf: Fix memlock accounting for sock_hash
bpf: sockmap: Don't attach programs to UDP sockets
bpf: tcp: Recv() should return 0 when the peer socket is closed
ibmvnic: Flush existing work items before device removal
genetlink: clean up family attributes allocations
net: ipa: header pad field only valid for AP->modem endpoint
net: ipa: program upper nibbles of sequencer type
net: ipa: fix modem LAN RX endpoint id
net: ipa: program metadata mask differently
ionic: add pcie_print_link_status
rxrpc: Fix race between incoming ACK parser and retransmitter
net/mlx5: E-Switch, Fix some error pointer dereferences
net/mlx5: Don't fail driver on failure to create debugfs
net/mlx5e: CT: Fix ipv6 nat header rewrite actions
...
This reverts commit a43a67a2d7.
This patch reverts the main part of switching direct io implementation
to iomap infrastructure. There's a problem in invalidate page that
couldn't be solved as regression in this development cycle.
The problem occurs when buffered and direct io are mixed, and the ranges
overlap. Although this is not recommended, filesystems implement
measures or fallbacks to make it somehow work. In this case, fallback to
buffered IO would be an option for btrfs (this already happens when
direct io is done on compressed data), but the change would be needed in
the iomap code, bringing new semantics to other filesystems.
Another problem arises when again the buffered and direct ios are mixed,
invalidation fails, then -EIO is set on the mapping and fsync will fail,
though there's no real error.
There have been discussions how to fix that, but revert seems to be the
least intrusive option.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200528192103.xm45qoxqmkw7i5yl@fiona/
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
On AM65xx MCU CPSW2G NUSS and 66AK2E/L NUSS allmulti setting does not allow
unregistered mcast packets to pass.
This happens, because ALE VLAN entries on these SoCs do not contain port
masks for reg/unreg mcast packets, but instead store indexes of
ALE_VLAN_MASK_MUXx_REG registers which intended for store port masks for
reg/unreg mcast packets.
This path was missed by commit 9d1f644727 ("net: ethernet: ti: ale: fix
seeing unreg mcast packets with promisc and allmulti disabled").
Hence, fix it by taking into account ALE type in cpsw_ale_set_allmulti().
Fixes: 9d1f644727 ("net: ethernet: ti: ale: fix seeing unreg mcast packets with promisc and allmulti disabled")
Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
The ALE parameters structure is created on stack, so it has to be reset
before passing to cpsw_ale_create() to avoid garbage values.
Fixes: 93a7653031 ("net: ethernet: ti: introduce am65x/j721e gigabit eth subsystem driver")
Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Alexei Starovoitov says:
====================
pull-request: bpf 2020-06-12
The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
We've added 26 non-merge commits during the last 10 day(s) which contain
a total of 27 files changed, 348 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-).
The main changes are:
1) sock_hash accounting fix, from Andrey.
2) libbpf fix and probe_mem sanitizing, from Andrii.
3) sock_hash fixes, from Jakub.
4) devmap_val fix, from Jesper.
5) load_bytes_relative fix, from YiFei.
====================
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Looking into the context (atomic!) and the error message should be dropped.
Signed-off-by: Liao Pingfang <liao.pingfang@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
