[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151204.170125.1062807391042745453.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:01:25 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: pavel@....cz
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jcliburn@...il.com,
chris.snook@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-mm@...ck.org, nic-devel@...lcomm.com, ronangeles@...il.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] atl1c: Improve driver not to do order 4 GFP_ATOMIC
allocation
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:30:27 +0100
> On Fri 2015-12-04 11:21:40, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
>> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:11:27 +0100
>>
>> >> >> if (unlikely(!ring_header->desc)) {
>> >> >> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pci_alloc_consistend failed\n");
>> >> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not get memory for DMA buffer\n");
>> >> >> goto err_nomem;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> memset(ring_header->desc, 0, ring_header->size);
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So this memset() will really require a different patch to get removed ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sigh, not sure why I review patches.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed, please use dma_zalloc_coherent() and kill that memset().
>> >
>> > Ok, updated. I'll also add cc: stable, because it makes notebooks with
>> > affected chipset unusable.
>>
>> Networking patches do not use CC: stable, instead you simply ask me
>> to queue it up and then I batch submit networking fixes to -stable
>> periodically myself.
>
> Ok, can you take the patch and ignore the Cc, or should I do one more
> iteration?
I took care of it.
--
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