On Sat, 5 May 2018, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > What you can't see just from reading the patch is that in both cases > > (ehci->itd_pool and ehci->sitd_pool) there are two allocation paths -- > > the two branches of an "if" statement -- and only one of the paths > > calls dma_pool_[z]alloc. However, the memset is needed for both paths, > > and so it can't be eliminated. Given that it must be present, there's > > no advantage to calling dma_pool_zalloc rather than dma_pool_alloc. > > > > Can you try reverting just these portions while leaving the first part > > unchanged? > > Sorry for breaking the stability. > > Alan , shall I keep the first part unchanged and revert the second part and > send the patch new patch ? Since Greg is going to (or already has) reverted the original commit, you might as well submit a new patch that changes just the first section. Alan Stern -- 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
