netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ath10k: use dma_zalloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:25:29 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     "Valo, Kalle" <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        "ath10k@...ts.infradead.org" <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ath10k: use dma_zalloc_coherent()

On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 05:18 +0000, Valo, Kalle wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 15:04 +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > > use dma_zalloc_coherent() instead of dma_alloc_coherent and memset().
> > 
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c
> > 
> > []
> > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static int ath10k_pci_diag_read_mem(struct ath10k *ar, u32 address, void *data,
> > >  	 */
> > >  	alloc_nbytes = min_t(unsigned int, nbytes, DIAG_TRANSFER_LIMIT);
> > >  
> > > -	data_buf = (unsigned char *)dma_alloc_coherent(ar->dev,
> > > +	data_buf = (unsigned char *)dma_zalloc_coherent(ar->dev,
> > >  						       alloc_nbytes,
> > >  						       &ce_data_base,
> > >  						       GFP_ATOMIC);
> > 
> > trivia:
> > 
> > Nicer to realign arguments and remove the unnecessary cast.
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> > 
> > 	data_buf = dma_zalloc_coherent(ar->dev, alloc_nbytes, &ce_data_base,
> > 				       GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> Sure, but that should be in a separate patch.

I don't think so, trivial patches can be combined.

It's also nicer to realign all modified multiline
arguments when performing these changes.

Coccinelle generally does it automatically.