On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:37:30PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:45:12PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote: >> >> @@ -2208,8 +2204,11 @@ static int et131x_rx_dma_memory_alloc(struct et131x_adapter *adapter) >> >> rx_ring = &adapter->rx_ring; >> >> >> >> /* Alloc memory for the lookup table */ >> >> - rx_ring->fbr[0] = kmalloc(sizeof(struct fbr_lookup), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> - rx_ring->fbr[1] = kmalloc(sizeof(struct fbr_lookup), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + rx_ring->fbr[0] = kmalloc(sizeof(struct fbr_lookup) * 2, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + if (!rx_ring->fbr[0]) >> >> + return -ENOMEM; >> >> + >> >> + rx_ring->fbr[1] = rx_ring->fbr[0] + 1; >> >> >> >> /* The first thing we will do is configure the sizes of the buffer >> >> * rings. These will change based on jumbo packet support. Larger >> > >> > I can't make myself review any further beyond this point... Please >> > don't do this nonsense. >> > >> >> I don't think it is nonsense. The original code doesn't have error >> check on this two kmalloc, I combine them to one so I only need to add >> one error check on it. > > Just do two allocations and two checks unless you have benchmark numbers > to show that it faster. Making the code so complicated for no reason is > a wrong thing. > I don't do this for benchmark, I do this for I just want to write less code. Say complication, you said it's nonsense, I think you did mean idiotic nonsense, not complicated nonsense :-) Anyway, if it must be changed, I will change it. > regards, > dan carpenter > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
