On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:08:49PM +0000, Jose Rivera wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] staging: fsl-mc: MC bus IRQ support
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:09:08PM +0000, Jose Rivera wrote:
> > > > > + WARN_ON((int16_t)irq_count < 0);
> > > >
> > > > This code is doing "WARN_ON(test_bit(15, (unsigned long
> > *)&irq_count));".
> > > > That seems like nonsense. Anyway, just delete the WARN_ON().
> > > >
> > > I disagree. This WARN_ON is checking that irq_count is in the expected
> > > range (it fits in int16_t as a positive number). The
> > > dprc_scan_objects() function expects irq_count to be of type "unsigned
> > > int" (which is 32-bit unsigned)
> > >
> >
> > You're not allowed to disagree because it's a testable thing and not an
> > opinion about style or something. :P What you want is:
> >
> > WARN_ON(irq_count > SHRT_MAX);
> >
> I see your point now. The check "(int16_t)irq_count < 0)" will not be able
> to catch 0x10000 > 0x7fff, but "irq_count > SHRT_MAX) will. So I'll
> make the suggested change, but I would prefer to use S16_MAX rather than
> SHRT_MAX.
>
Huh? I didn't even know about the S16_MAX definition. There are
literally no users of it in the kernel. It's not very fair because
there are few users of SHRT_MAX. But there are literally no users of
S32_MAX in the kernel and 358 users of INT_MAX.
Don't insist that you must be special and different from everyone else.
> > > > to read what "goto error;" does. The error handling here calls
> > > > devm_kfree() which is not needed... devm_ functions automatically
> > > > clean up after themselves. This seems a pattern throughout. Do a
> > > > search for
> > > > devm_free() and see which ones are really needed or not.
> > > >
> > > I know that memory allocated with devm_kzalloc() is freed at the end
> > > of the lifetime of the device it is attached to. However, in error
> > > paths, why wait until the device is destroyed? Why not free the memory
> > > earlier so that it can be used for other purposes?
> >
> Why then do the devm_kfree() function exist?
>
> I will not remove the devm_free() calls unless the upstream maintainer
> requires me to do so.
I'm not saying remove them all. I'm saying:
1) I am concerned that you seem to thing devm_ is garbage collection.
2) Remove the ones which are not needed, because it is a lot of work
for me to figure this out so I was hoping you could do it.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
