![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On Oct 12 2005, at 00:52, Marcel Holtmann was caught saying:
>
>>Hi Andrew,
>>
>>>Confused. This patch changes lots of block code, not bluetooth.
>>
>>I know. This is what I already mailed Deepak, but he never replied.
>
> Sorry, got lost in the mailbox. I think I was not paying attention to
> my tab completion and included the wrong patch. Proper patch follows.
>
[...]
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_usb.c
> @@ -134,10 +134,9 @@ static struct usb_device_id blacklist_id
>
> static struct _urb *_urb_alloc(int isoc, unsigned int __nocast gfp)
> {
> - struct _urb *_urb = kmalloc(sizeof(struct _urb) +
> + struct _urb *_urb = kzalloc(sizeof(struct _urb) +
> sizeof(struct usb_iso_packet_descriptor) * isoc, gfp);
> if (_urb) {
> - memset(_urb, 0, sizeof(*_urb));
> usb_init_urb(&_urb->urb);
> }
> return _urb;
This one doesn't keep the exact same behavior as before, as it is
zeroing more memory than it did.
If this is not a performance critical path, then I guess it's ok (code
size reduction, and all).
I just wanted to call some attention on this so that someone more
knowledgeable than me in the bluetooth ways can make sure it's ok.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our
adversaries are insane.
Mark Twain
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-12 12:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||