Hi Eike, * Rolf Eike Beer <eike-hotplug@xxxxxxxxx>: > Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2007 schrieb Alex Chiang: > > * Rolf Eike Beer <eike-hotplug@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > This is ugly. Please do it the way we already do e.g. for > > > acpiphp: add a char[8] to "struct dummy_slot" and just > > > reference that here. > > > > I took at look at the code in acpiphp you're talking about, > > and I'm not sure why you think the above is "ugly". We're > > talking about a runtime vs compile time storage for the name, > > and doing a kmalloc/sprintf is a pretty standard idiom. > > > > BTW, I did incorporate both Linas' and Willy's comments, by > > changing the kmalloc size to an explicit 32, and using > > snprintf instead. > > > > In any case, for your particular comment, I think I'm going > > to leave it alone for now, and let Greg weigh in with the > > final recommendation. > > Because we have another allocation of very small size for every > slot here. > > struct dummy_slot has a size of 4 pointers, that's 16 byte for > 32 bit architectures. Putting 8 byte of additional storage here > would save a complete allocation on 32 bit platforms. For 64 > bit platforms the memory usage is the same but we do less > allocations (i.e. less points to fail) and less memory > fragmentation. > > Btw: your code lacks a check if kmalloc() returns NULL. Good points. I'll make your suggested change for v2. Thanks. /ac - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
