On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:55:21PM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > On 19/10/2014 15:15, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:41:12PM +0100, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>For: VIZ-4377 > >>Signed-off-by: John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx > >I think this should be squashed (well, split first) into the relevant > >earlier patches. Generally I much prefer kzalloc, and we use that almost > >everywhere. > > > >Or does this silently fix some issue and doesn't tell? > >-Daniel > No, I just left it separate so as to change as little as possible in each > individual patch. The original code did a kmalloc() of the request. That > predates my changes. So if I did a km -> kz change in the middle of some > other work I was assuming you would complain at me doing too much in a > single patch. Whereas, the 'complete' field is the first time a zero fill > becomes significant so it made sense (to me) to leave the switch to kz until > here. Makes sense, but this kind of explanation really should be in the commit message. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
