On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:20:22PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/19/2011 07:50 PM, Ezequiel wrote: > > Pushed video_device initialization into a separate function. > > Replaced static allocation of struct video_device by > > video_device_alloc/video_device_release usage. > > NACK! I see a video_device_release call here, but not a > video_device_alloc, also you're messing with quite sensitive code > here (because a usb device can be unplugged at any time, including > when the /dev/video node is open by a process), and changing it > from static to dynamic allocation my have more consequences > then you see at first (I did not analyze all the code paths > for the proposed change, since the last time I audited them for > the current static allocation of the videodevice struct code took > me hours). > > Also static allocation (as part of the driver struct) in general is > better then dynamic as it needs less code and helps avoiding memory > fragmentation. > > All in all I cannot help but feel that you're diving into a piece > of code with some drive by shooting style patch without knowing > the code in question at all, please don't do that! > > Regards, > > Hans > Hi Hans, Sorry, really dont know what happened, I sent an incomplete patch version. (some vim yank-key error). I understand your observations about static vs dynamic, but please could you review the right patch. Thanks, Ezequiel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
