On Sat, 2018-06-16 at 12:16 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2018-06-16 at 21:45 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:46 AM Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.c > > om> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 04:20:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Switch to bitmap_zalloc() to show clearly what we are > > > > allocating. > > > > Besides that it returns pointer of bitmap type instead of opaque > > > > void *. > > > > > > > > + mem = bitmap_alloc(maxbit, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > if (!mem) > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > But in commit message you say you switch to bitmap_zalloc(). IIUC > > > bitmap_alloc() is OK here. But could you please update comment to > > > avoid confusing. > > > > There are two places, one with alloc, another with zalloc. > > I will clarify this in commit message of next version. > > > > > > + mask = bitmap_zalloc(cnt, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > if (!mask) > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > error = bits_from_user(mask, cnt - 1, codes_size, codes, > > > > compat); > > > > > > If my understanding of bits_from_user() correct, here you can also > > > use > > > bitmap_alloc(), true? > > Also it might be useful to have a separate bitmap_from_user > to alloc and copy. Maybe. I didn't check if there are such users except this driver. Anyway, it's out of scope of the series. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
