[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ADE657CA350FB648AAC2C43247A983F0020698DBC4A9@AUSP01VMBX24.collaborationhost.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:07:41 -0500
From: H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"fmhess@...rs.sourceforge.net" <fmhess@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
"abbotti@....co.uk" <abbotti@....co.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging: comedi: cleanup alloc_subdevices
On Monday, June 11, 2012 4:57 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:08:15PM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> Cleanup the comedi core "alloc_subdevices" fuction and it's use
>> in the comedi drivers.
>>
>> 1) Move the inline alloc_subdevices() function from comedidev.h
>> to drivers.c and rename it to comedi_alloc_subdevices(). The
>> function is large enough to warrant being an exported symbol
>> rather than being an inline in every driver.
>>
>> 2) Since dev->n_subdevices is an int variable, change the
>> num_subdevices parameter from an unsigned int to an int.
>>
>> 3) It's possible for a couple of the comedi drivers to incorrectly
>> call this function with num_subdevices = 0 so add a sanity check
>> before doing the kcalloc.
>>
>> 4) It's possible for the kcalloc to fail so don't set dev->n_subdevices
>> until after the kcalloc has succedded. Also, remove the places in
>> the drivers were dev->n_subdevices was being set directly.
>>
>> 5) Remove all the "allocation failed" error messages.
>>
>> 6) Remove all the "Allocate the subdevice structures" comments from
>> the drivers. The function name itself provides this information.
>>
>> 7) When comedi_alloc_subdevices does fail, make all the drivers
>> properly return the error code.
>
> You are doing 7 different things in one patch. Doesn't that imply that
> you should have 7 different patches, in series, doing this? That would
> make it easier to review at the least.
>
> Please redo this in that manner and resend.
2, 3, and 4 probably go together. They all deal with the 'num_subdevices'
1 can be a separate patch as long as I don't do the rename.
5, 6, and 7 could all go together with the final rename of the function.
Does that sound ok?
Regards,
Hartley
--
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