[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201007020023.13815.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:23:13 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, markgross@...gnar.org,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request()
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, mark gross wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:44:48PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Since every caller has to squirrel away the returned pointer anyway,
> > they might as well supply the memory area. This fixes a bug in a few of
> > the call sites where the returned pointer was dereferenced without
> > checking it for NULL (which gets returned if the kzalloc failed).
> >
> > I'd like to hear how sound and netdev feels about this: it will add
> > about two more pointers worth of data to struct netdev and struct
> > snd_pcm_substream .. but I think it's worth it. If you're OK, I'll add
> > your acks and send through the pm tree.
> >
> > This also looks to me like an android independent clean up (even though
> > it renders the request_add atomically callable). I also added include
> > guards to include/linux/pm_qos_params.h
> >
> > cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
> Thank you for doing this!, I'll integrate it into some testing targets
> in the morning!
>
> Signed-off-by: mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org>
I would apply this one too, but I need a final changelog for it. Care to send?
Rafael
--
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