From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750785AbVJMJwY (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:52:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750810AbVJMJwY (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:52:24 -0400 Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([217.160.111.169]:48616 "EHLO mail.holtmann.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785AbVJMJwX (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:52:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BLUETOOTH] kmalloc + memset -> kzalloc conversion From: Marcel Holtmann To: Paulo Marques Cc: dsaxena@plexity.net, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <434CFF51.1070709@grupopie.com> References: <20051001065121.GC25424@plexity.net> <20051011151805.0d32c840.akpm@osdl.org> <1129071122.6487.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051011230440.GA26330@plexity.net> <434CFF51.1070709@grupopie.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:52:57 +0200 Message-Id: <1129197177.6543.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Paulo, > >>>Confused. This patch changes lots of block code, not bluetooth. > >> > >>I know. This is what I already mailed Deepak, but he never replied. > > > > Sorry, got lost in the mailbox. I think I was not paying attention to > > my tab completion and included the wrong patch. Proper patch follows. > > > [...] > > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_usb.c > > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_usb.c > > @@ -134,10 +134,9 @@ static struct usb_device_id blacklist_id > > > > static struct _urb *_urb_alloc(int isoc, unsigned int __nocast gfp) > > { > > - struct _urb *_urb = kmalloc(sizeof(struct _urb) + > > + struct _urb *_urb = kzalloc(sizeof(struct _urb) + > > sizeof(struct usb_iso_packet_descriptor) * isoc, gfp); > > if (_urb) { > > - memset(_urb, 0, sizeof(*_urb)); > > usb_init_urb(&_urb->urb); > > } > > return _urb; > > This one doesn't keep the exact same behavior as before, as it is > zeroing more memory than it did. > > If this is not a performance critical path, then I guess it's ok (code > size reduction, and all). > > I just wanted to call some attention on this so that someone more > knowledgeable than me in the bluetooth ways can make sure it's ok. the current hci_usb URB shim layer is crap anyhow. We need to replace it at some point with better code, but so far I haven't had the time to do this properly. Regards Marcel