On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:31:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > > I vote for a clean solution, a fixup of existing implementations and > > > a clear note about how to allocate buffers for USB drivers. I believe > > > faulty allocations of this kind can explain quite a lot of problems on > > > x86_64 machines. > > > > Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different > > ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on > > this wierd hardware. > > > > Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver? > > Or is that too much overhead? > > FWIW, most drivers I've seen in the past hours use a wild mix of > kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc() and usb_buffer_alloc(). That should > really be unified. Yes, if it is necessary that we have to handle this type of crappy hardware, then it all needs to be unified. Or at least unified into 2 types of calls, one that needs the bounce buffer fun (what usb_buffer_alloc() does today), and one that doesn't (usb_kzalloc() perhaps?) thanks, greg k-h -- 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
