On marted? 29 marzo 2022 11:18:27 CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 07:55:39AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_transport.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_transport.c
> > index 805dc18fac0a..56b6cc845619 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_transport.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_transport.c
> > @@ -92,13 +92,11 @@ unsigned int rtsx_stor_access_xfer_buf(unsigned char *buffer,
> > while (sglen > 0) {
> > unsigned int plen = min(sglen, (unsigned int)
> > PAGE_SIZE - poff);
> > - unsigned char *ptr = kmap(page);
> >
> > if (dir == TO_XFER_BUF)
> > - memcpy(ptr + poff, buffer + cnt, plen);
> > + memcpy_to_page(page + poff, 0, buffer + cnt, plen);
>
> You meant:
>
> memcpy_to_page(page, poff, buffer + cnt, plen);
>
Yes, correct. I meant exactly what you wrote.
It's the first time that I use these API and, after 30 seconds look at their
prototypes, I thought that either have the same semantics.
I don't yet know if I'm wrong. However, even if either were correct, yours
would be more consistent and elegant. Therefore, I am going to change these
calls and submit a v3.
Thanks for your review,
Fabio M. De Francesco
> > else
> > - memcpy(buffer + cnt, ptr + poff, plen);
> > - kunmap(page);
> > + memcpy_from_page(buffer + cnt, page + poff, 0, plen);
>
> Same.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
