[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <456741DD.6060103@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:02:53 +0200
From: Yan Burman <burman.yan@...il.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org,
wli@...omorphy.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc6] sparc: replace kmalloc+memset with kzalloc
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Yan Burman wrote:
> ...
>
>> --- linux-2.6.19-rc5_orig/arch/sparc/kernel/sun4d_irq.c 2006-11-09 12:16:21.000000000 +0200
>> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc5_kzalloc/arch/sparc/kernel/sun4d_irq.c 2006-11-11 22:44:04.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -545,8 +545,7 @@ void __init sun4d_init_sbi_irq(void)
>> nsbi = 0;
>> for_each_sbus(sbus)
>> nsbi++;
>> - sbus_actions = (struct sbus_action *)kmalloc (nsbi * 8 * 4 * sizeof(struct sbus_action), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> - memset (sbus_actions, 0, (nsbi * 8 * 4 * sizeof(struct sbus_action)));
>> + sbus_actions = kzalloc (nsbi * 8 * 4 * sizeof(struct sbus_action), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> for_each_sbus(sbus) {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> extern unsigned char boot_cpu_id;
>>
>
> I'm not sure about this ^ hunk, but...
>
>
>> diff -rubp linux-2.6.19-rc5_orig/arch/sparc/mm/io-unit.c linux-2.6.19-rc5_kzalloc/arch/sparc/mm/io-unit.c
>> --- linux-2.6.19-rc5_orig/arch/sparc/mm/io-unit.c 2006-11-09 12:16:21.000000000 +0200
>> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc5_kzalloc/arch/sparc/mm/io-unit.c 2006-11-11 22:44:04.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -41,9 +41,8 @@ iounit_init(int sbi_node, int io_node, s
>> struct linux_prom_registers iommu_promregs[PROMREG_MAX];
>> struct resource r;
>>
>> - iounit = kmalloc(sizeof(struct iounit_struct), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + iounit = kzalloc(sizeof(struct iounit_struct), GFP_ATOMIC);
>>
>> - memset(iounit, 0, sizeof(*iounit));
>> iounit->limit[0] = IOUNIT_BMAP1_START;
>> iounit->limit[1] = IOUNIT_BMAP2_START;
>> iounit->limit[2] = IOUNIT_BMAPM_START;
>>
>
> ...in this ^, the old code and your update don't check for NULL return.
>
Both of this parts are done at early stages, so it is probably:
a) Impossible to recover from failure
b) If you run out of memory at this stage, you are probably in very big
trouble anyway
I could modify it to check and panic if the check fails.
Would that be better?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists