Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gpu: Initial GPU layer addition. (03/07) | From | Nix <> | Date | Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:04:06 +0100 |
| |
Nice stuff! A couple of total nits and a check to see if I'm understanding something.
On 22 Jul 2006, Dave Airlie noted: > + * If the driver type matches thte device, call the bus match function.
Typo.
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: to many buses\n", "gpu");
Another typo.
> +/** > + * gpu_alloc_devices > + * > + * Allocate and initialise the GPU sub-devices. > + */ > +int gpu_alloc_devices(struct gpu_bus *bus) > +{ > + struct gpu_device *dev; > + int i; > + > + for (i=0; i<bus->num_subdev; i++) { > + dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!dev) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + bus = gpu_bus_get(bus); > + if (!bus) { > + kfree(dev); > + return -ENOMEM; > + }
If we fall out of either of these paths, what does the bus look like? Does it end up with half its sub-devices on? (I don't *think* we end up leaking dev's allocated earlier....)
> +/** > + * gpu_unregister_devices > + */ > +int gpu_unregister_devices(struct gpu_bus *bus) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < bus->num_subdev; i++) { > + struct gpu_device *gpu_dev = bus->devices[i]; > + > + device_del(&gpu_dev->dev); > + > + kfree(gpu_dev); > + bus->devices[i] = NULL; > + } > + return 0; > +}
... because I think this would still catch them. Am I right?
-- `We're sysadmins. We deal with the inconceivable so often I can clearly see the need to define levels of inconceivability.' --- Rik Steenwinkel - 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/
| |