lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] staging: iio replaced kmalloc with local variables.
Date
Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/07/11 05:56, anish singh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de
>> <mailto:gregkh@suse.de>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:28:29PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:21 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:10:57PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:37:37AM +0530, anish wrote:
>> > > > > > From: anish kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com
>> <mailto:anish198519851985@gmail.com>> > > > > > Replace kmalloc with
>> local variables as it was un-necessary and > > > > > also removed the
>> redudant code after this change. > > > > SPI data, like USB data, has to
>> come from kmalloced data, not from the > > > > stack, or bad things can,
>> and will, happen. > > > Perhaps just add a comment like:
>> > > > + u8 *tx = kmalloc(2, GFP_KERNEL); /* can't be on stack */
>> > > You really want to do to that for _EVERY_ SPI and USB driver? I
>> don't > > think so.
>> >
>> > Nope, only the ones that look especially odd because
>> > kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo), ...)
>> > or
>> > kmalloc(sizeof("type), ...)
>> > is not used.
>> >
>> > It might be better to just declare a 2 byte struct.
>>
>> No, this is a very common thing for all USB and SPI drivers. It's so
>> obvious that once I saw the Subject: line, I knew this patch was going
>> to be wrong.
>>
>> This is something that the USB and SPI developers know all about, it's
>> the way things work, and this driver works, so why are people trying to
>> "clean" it up in ways that will break it, or cause extra work with
>> structures where they are not needed at all?
>>
>> Sorry for noise as i didn't the SPI requirements,thought it is similar to
>> I2C and
>> in cleaning up below part i wrongly cleaned SPI part also.Below was also part
>> of patch.
> Not to worry, you are far from the first person to fall into this issue!
> Also, you have highlighted a weird corner in that driver, that could do with
> tidying up (just not quite the fix you had in mind!).
>> static int max1363_write_basic_config(struct i2c_client *client,
>> unsigned char d2)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> - u8 *tx_buf = kmalloc(2, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + u8 tx_buf[2];
>> if (!tx_buf)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -215,7 +215,6 @@ static int max1363_write_basic_config(struct i2c_client
>> *client, tx_buf[1] = d2;
>> ret = i2c_master_send(client, tx_buf, 2);
>> - kfree(tx_buf);
>> return (ret > 0) ? 0 : ret;
>> }
>> I think above patch is ok as it is I2C and I2C doesn't have that requirement.
> Yes. I2C bus drivers that do dma do the copy into dma safe memory internally.
> Makes for more bouncing around of data, but i2c is slow anyway so it doesn't
> matter. Also, based on a quick look this morning, the dma buffers tend to
> require various headers to be in place etc which isn't typically the case for
> spi (a much more 'raw' bus).
I couldn't understand this comment.Specifically "various headers"?
Will appreciate it if you kindly explain.
>
> Can you cc linux-iio@vger.kernel.org on that patch when you send it out
> please.
Sure.Sorry for not sending it there.
>
> Jonathan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-07 12:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans