Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/22] pci-dma-compat: Add pci_zalloc_consistent helper | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:51:51 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 12:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:41:29 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > Add this helper for consistency with pci_zalloc_coherent > > and the ability to remove unnecessary memset(,0,) uses. > > While we're being anal.. I'm not a big fan of the patch titles. Worst > is "amd: Use pci_zalloc_consistent". "amd" is quite a poor identifier > - it's only when you get in and look at the diff that you realise it's > an ethernet driver.
Yeah, those "amd:" prefixes should really have been "pcnet32:"
> People sometimes address this by using > > "drivers: net: ethernet: amd: use pci_zalloc_consistent" > > which strikes me as utterly perverse. We already have a nice way of > representing the hierarchy and that's using '/'.
I used to do that until several people complained. Now I don't. btw: Documentation/SubmittingPatches says:
15) The canonical patch format
The canonical patch subject line is:
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
> So when the irritation gets too high and when I can be bothered I'll > rewrite things like that to > > "drivers/net/ethernet/amd: use pci_zalloc_consistent" > > which strikes me as being blindingly obvious, but apparently I'm in a > small minority :( > > > --- a/include/asm-generic/pci-dma-compat.h > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/pci-dma-compat.h > > @@ -19,6 +19,14 @@ pci_alloc_consistent(struct pci_dev *hwdev, size_t size, > > return dma_alloc_coherent(hwdev == NULL ? NULL : &hwdev->dev, size, dma_handle, GFP_ATOMIC); > > } > > > > +static inline void * > > +pci_zalloc_consistent(struct pci_dev *hwdev, size_t size, > > + dma_addr_t *dma_handle) > > +{ > > + return dma_zalloc_coherent(hwdev == NULL ? NULL : &hwdev->dev, > > + size, dma_handle, GFP_ATOMIC); > > +} > > + > > We'd get a smaller kernel by uninlining this. It is hardly > performance-sensitive. Uninlining would presumably use more stack, > but GFP_ATOMIC won't use a ton of stack anyway.
True. Maybe via a follow-on patch.
Another option would be to remove pci_[z]alloc_consistent and just use dma_alloc_coherent instead.
| |