[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a297b360702130521l4ae0de2byf2c277a505adf273@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:21:37 +0400
From: "Manu Abraham" <abraham.manu@...il.com>
To: "Trent Piepho" <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>
Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@...hat.com>, v4l-dvb-maintainer@...uxtv.org,
mchehab@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] Re: dvb shared datastructure bug?
On 2/13/07, Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to kmalloc both struct dvb_device and
> > struct file_operations together instead of doing 2 separate allocations?
> > struct dvd_device_plus_fops
> > {
> > struct dvb_device dev;
> > struct file_operations fops;
> > } *dev_fops = kmalloc (sizeof (struct dvd_device_plus_fops), GFP_KERNEL);
> > *pdvbdev = dvbdev = (struct dvb_device *)dev_fops;
> > if (dev_fops == NULL)
> > error handling;
> > memset (&dev_fops->fops, 0, sizeof (dev_fops->fops));
> > ...
> > dvbdev->fops = &dev_fops->fops;
>
> Maybe change struct dvb_device:
>
> struct dvb_device {
> struct list_head list_head;
> - struct file_operations *fops;
> + struct file_operations fops;
> struct dvb_adapter *adapter;
>
We can of course do that, but if we do that now, i will have to rework
on the changes that which i have, but considering the changes that i
have i wouldn't want to do such a change right now as marcel
explained. But we can surely go in for this, as soon as the rest of
the API changes goes in, ie, multiproto + adaptor changes
manu
-
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