On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:29:31PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > From: 'David Cohen' > ... > > I actually don't know what's the regular range of 'td_cnt'. But what got my > > attention was this comment from patch description: > > > > "The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td > > when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires > > an additional page." > > I wrote that just in case anyone knew that 64 td would be common. > I suspect the typical number is much lower. Ah :) That clears things up. Your patch won't influence kmalloc > PAGE_SIZE in general. Although leaving the pointers in a different struct preserves the possibility to call kmalloc multiple times when xhci_td's allocation requires more than PAGE_SIZE. But again, I'm not sure how often this happens, so I have not much arguments in favor or against it. Br, David Cohen > > David > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
