[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160729134802.3bdbfe84@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:48:02 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Ji-Ze Hong (Peter Hong)" <hpeter@...il.com>
Cc: johan@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
tom_tsai@...tek.com.tw, peter_hong@...tek.com.tw,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Ji-Ze Hong (Peter Hong)" <hpeter+linux_kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb:serial: Add Fintek F81532/534 driver
O
> +static int f81534_set_normal_register(struct usb_device *dev, u16 reg, u8 data)
> +{
> + size_t count = F81534_USB_MAX_RETRY;
> + int status;
> + u8 *tmp;
> +
> + tmp = kmalloc(sizeof(u8), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!tmp)
> + return -ENOMEM;
You end up doing huge numbers of tiny allocation and frees in some of the
code paths. I think it would be better to allocate them at a higher level
as they are not that cheap on CPU time.
> +static int f81534_read_data(struct usb_serial *usbserial, u32 address,
> + size_t size, unsigned char *buf)
> +{
Is a particularly good example - you do 4 mallocs plus two per byte of
data.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists