[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <460D7980.5090600@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:56:32 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: jeff@...zik.org, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
cramerj@...el.com, john.ronciak@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] e1000: major part of the new API changes
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>> +s32
>> +e1000_alloc_zeroed_dev_spec_struct(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 size)
>> +{
>> + hw->dev_spec = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> + if (!hw->dev_spec)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + memset(hw->dev_spec, 0, size);
>> +
>> + return E1000_SUCCESS;
>> +}
>>
>
> This is what is wrong with a lot of the new code. It is written as
> verbose as possible.
>
> What is wrong with open coded
> hw->dev_spec = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL).
nothing, I'll make sure that we change this. Please remember that this code was
written over a period of about 1 year, and a lot of cleanups that happened in
other parts of e1000 may very well have been overlooked. Also, it may be "ugly"
but it's definately not wrong at all.
>> +
>> +void
>> +e1000_free_dev_spec_struct(struct e1000_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> + if (!hw->dev_spec)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + kfree(hw->dev_spec);
>> +}
>> +
>>
> Almost looks like you contracted this out to someone paid by the LOC.
will fix, thanks for the comments.
Auke
-
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