[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702100702.15264.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:02:14 +0100
From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>
Cc: linville@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, kune@...ne-taler.de,
rpjday@...dspring.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: Readd zd_addr_t cast
On Saturday 10 February 2007 02:27, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Robert P.J. Day's recent commit ("getting rid of all casts of k[cmz]alloc()
> calls") introduced a sparse warning for zd1211rw, related to our type-checking
> of addresses.
>
> zd_chip.c:116:15: warning: implicit cast to nocast type
>
> This patch readds the type cast, it is correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>
>
> Index: linux/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> +++ linux/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int zd_ioread32v_locked(struct zd_chip *
>
> /* Allocate a single memory block for values and addresses. */
> count16 = 2*count;
> - a16 = kmalloc(count16 * (sizeof(zd_addr_t) + sizeof(u16)),
> + a16 = (zd_addr_t *) kmalloc(count16 * (sizeof(zd_addr_t) + sizeof(u16)),
> GFP_NOFS);
Unrelated, but I am wondering since quite some time why you pass GFP_NOFS here.
Any special reason? I think in general there is no good reason for code outside
of the VFS to use this flag.
IMHO you should pass either GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_KERNEL.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists