On 06/07/2014 05:57 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 06/06/2014 02:33 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
+ kfree(buffer);
+ goto save_regs_and_restart;
+ }
+
+ ath10k_dbg_save_fw_dbg_buffer(ar, buffer,
+ dbuf.length);
+ kfree(buffer);
Instead of doing atomic allocations multiple times in a loop, would it
be better to allocate just one buffer before the loop and free it
afterwards?
There is no hard guarantee that the buffer lengths are the same,
so I think it needs to remain as is. Would rather not crap out
because firmware suddenly got more clever...
This is related to my earlier comment about having a max len for the
buffers. So why not come up with a sane max length, allocate once a
temporary buffer of that length and use the same buffer in the loop?
I can fix it at a 4k chunk if you want. Current firmware uses around 2k chunk
I believe, and only two buffers, so either way it's not a lot of work for CPU.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
