于 2012年12月06日 19:01, Peter Stuge 写道:
> Chen Gang wrote:
>> it is better to let "u16 status" instead of "u16 *status = kmalloc...".
> .
>> 940 int usb_get_status(struct usb_device *dev, int type, int target, void *data)
>> 941 {
>> 942 int ret;
>> 943 u16 *status = kmalloc(sizeof(*status), GFP_KERNEL);
>> 944
>> 945 if (!status)
>> 946 return -ENOMEM;
>> 947
>> 948 ret = usb_control_msg(dev, usb_rcvctrlpipe(dev, 0),
>> 949 USB_REQ_GET_STATUS, USB_DIR_IN | type, 0, target, status,
>> 950 sizeof(*status), USB_CTRL_GET_TIMEOUT);
>> 951
>> 952 *(u16 *)data = *status;
>> 953 kfree(status);
>> 954 return ret;
>> 955 }
>> 956 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_get_status);
>
> Maybe you can send a patch with a proposed improvement?
>
ok, thank you, I will do.
are the title of this kind of patch different with normal patch ?
for example:
normal patch is [PATCH] drivers/usb/core: ...
and our proposed improvement patch is same the normal patch ?
if not same, please help describing it (I am just learning)
thank you.
:-)
gchen.
>
> Best regards
>
> //Peter
>
>
--
Chen Gang
Asianux Corporation
--
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
