lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems
    On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:31:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
    > > > I vote for a clean solution, a fixup of existing implementations and
    > > > a clear note about how to allocate buffers for USB drivers. I believe
    > > > faulty allocations of this kind can explain quite a lot of problems on
    > > > x86_64 machines.
    > >
    > > Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different
    > > ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on
    > > this wierd hardware.
    > >
    > > Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
    > > Or is that too much overhead?
    >
    > FWIW, most drivers I've seen in the past hours use a wild mix of
    > kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc() and usb_buffer_alloc(). That should
    > really be unified.

    Yes, if it is necessary that we have to handle this type of crappy
    hardware, then it all needs to be unified. Or at least unified into 2
    types of calls, one that needs the bounce buffer fun (what
    usb_buffer_alloc() does today), and one that doesn't (usb_kzalloc()
    perhaps?)

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-07 17:53    [W:4.111 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site