[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100407155122.GA13974@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:22 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:31:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > > I vote for a clean solution, a fixup of existing implementations and
> > > a clear note about how to allocate buffers for USB drivers. I believe
> > > faulty allocations of this kind can explain quite a lot of problems on
> > > x86_64 machines.
> >
> > Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different
> > ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on
> > this wierd hardware.
> >
> > Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> > Or is that too much overhead?
>
> FWIW, most drivers I've seen in the past hours use a wild mix of
> kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc() and usb_buffer_alloc(). That should
> really be unified.
Yes, if it is necessary that we have to handle this type of crappy
hardware, then it all needs to be unified. Or at least unified into 2
types of calls, one that needs the bounce buffer fun (what
usb_buffer_alloc() does today), and one that doesn't (usb_kzalloc()
perhaps?)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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