On Mar. 29, 2009, 19:31 +0300, Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:53 -0700, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
>> +static int nfs4_init_slot_table(struct nfs4_session *session)
>
> This function isn't used anywhere. Why is it being defined in this
> patch?
Yeah, I'll move its definition to first usage (create_session)
>
>> +{
>> + struct nfs4_slot_table *tbl = &session->fc_slot_table;
>> + int i, max_slots = session->fc_attrs.max_reqs;
>> + struct nfs4_slot *slot;
>> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(max_slots > NFS4_MAX_SLOT_TABLE);
>> +
>> + dprintk("--> %s: max_reqs=%u\n", __func__,
>> + session->fc_attrs.max_reqs);
>> +
>> + slot = kzalloc(max_slots * sizeof(struct nfs4_slot),
>> GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Please use kcalloc() when allocating an array. Also, you need a strong
> justification for why this has to be a GFP_ATOMIC allocation.
OK. I think that GP_ATOMIC was just an overlook.
Will change to GFP_KERNEL.
>> +struct nfs4_session *nfs4_alloc_session(struct nfs_client *clp)
>> +{
>> + struct nfs4_session *session;
>> + struct nfs4_slot_table *tbl;
>> +
>> + session = kzalloc(sizeof(struct nfs4_session), GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> I can see no reason why this needs to be a GFP_ATOMIC allocation.
ditto.
Thanks!
Benny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
