Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:59:00 -0700 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem providers |
| |
On 07/21/2015 02:41 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > Thanks Stephen for review, > > On 20/07/15 22:11, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 07/20/2015 07:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..bde5528 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c >>> @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@ >>> >>> + >>> +static int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem, >>> + const struct nvmem_config *cfg) >>> +{ >>> + struct nvmem_cell **cells; >>> + const struct nvmem_cell_info *info = cfg->cells; >>> + int i, rval; >>> + >>> + cells = kzalloc(sizeof(*cells) * cfg->ncells, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> kcalloc? > > Only reason for using kzalloc is to give the code more flexibility to > free any pointer in the array in case of errors.
Still lost. The arrays are allocated down below in the for loop. This is allocating a bunch of pointers so using kcalloc() here avoids problems with overflows causing kzalloc() to allocate fewer pointers than requested. I'm not suggesting we replace the for loop with a kcalloc, just this single line.
> >> >>> + if (!cells) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < cfg->ncells; i++) { >>> + cells[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(**cells), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!cells[i]) { >>> + rval = -ENOMEM; >>> + goto err; >>> + } >>> +
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |