On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 01:50:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Robin van der Gracht wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 20:48:08 +0200 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + linedisp->num_chars = buf ? num_chars : min(num_chars, LINEDISP_DEFAULT_BUF_SZ); > > > > It's not a big buffer, but now it's always there even if it's not used. > > And even if it's used, it might be only partially used. > > Why not used a malloc instead? > > malloc() infra takes more than this IIRC (something like up to 32 bytes on > 64-bit platforms) or comparable sizes. Yes, the malloc() along with the > linedisp structure might make sense, but will require more invasive change. > > Do you want me to drop this one from the set? > (I have no hard feelings about it, as I see better way and just having no > time for taking care about, as it's not the main point of the series.) Looking again into it, the allocation separately with linedisp structure is indeed too much invasive. I prefer (as we save lines of code and deduplicate the buffer at least for two drivers, including a new one) to leave this patch for now. We may rework it later on. Do you agree? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
