Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:51:03 +0100 | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem providers |
| |
On 21/07/15 18:59, Stephen Boyd wrote: > 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.
My bad, I think I miss understood your suggestion, Yes, we can allocate pointers using kzalloc.
--srini > >> >>> >>>> + 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; >>>> + } >>>> + >
| |