Re: [PATCH] net: wan: Use dma_pool_zalloc

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 19:25 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:33 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 10:41 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Souptick Joarder [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Krzysztof Hałasa [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Souptick Joarder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

We should use dma_pool_zalloc instead of dma_pool_alloc/memset

[]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/ixp4xx_hss.c b/drivers/net/wan/ixp4xx_hss.c

[]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -976,10 +976,9 @@ static int init_hdlc_queues(struct port *port)
                      return -ENOMEM;
      }

-     if (!(port->desc_tab = dma_pool_alloc(dma_pool, GFP_KERNEL,
-                                           &port->desc_tab_phys)))
+     if (!(port->desc_tab = dma_pool_zalloc(dma_pool, GFP_KERNEL,
+                                            &port->desc_tab_phys)))
              return -ENOMEM;
-     memset(port->desc_tab, 0, POOL_ALLOC_SIZE);
      memset(port->rx_buff_tab, 0, sizeof(port->rx_buff_tab)); /* tables */
      memset(port->tx_buff_tab, 0, sizeof(port->tx_buff_tab));

This look fine, feel free to send it to the netdev mailing list for
inclusion.

Including netdev mailing list based as requested.

quoted

Acked-by: Krzysztof Halasa <khalasa@piap.pl>

[]

quoted

Any comment on this patch ?

Shouldn't the one in drivers/net/ethernet/xscale/ixp4xx_eth.c
also be changed?

Yes, you are right.   Do you want me to include it in same patch?

Your choice.  I would use a single patch.

There are few other places where the same change is applicable.
I am planning to put all those changes in a single patch. It includes
changes in drivers/net/ethernet/xscale/ixp4xx_eth.c

You can review this patch separately.

If you are spanning multiple drivers maintained by different
groups, it's probably better to create a patch series, one for
each driver, to allow the various maintainers to apply the
patches to their individually maintained drivers.

Joe