On 11/14/18 11:55 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 7:15 AM Enrico Jorns <ejo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This was a remnant from porting kernel code to barebox. While being uncritical so far, this will now cause a compiler error since kzalloc is not a define but a static inline function. As the kzalloc() 'mode' argument was ignored before and still will be, it is safe to remove the parameter. Signed-off-by: Enrico Jorns <ejo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_denali.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_denali.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_denali.c index 8b09b3722f..ef3395864c 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_denali.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_denali.c @@ -1387,7 +1387,7 @@ int denali_init(struct denali_nand_info *denali) } /* allocate a temporary buffer for nand_scan_ident() */ - denali->buf.buf = kzalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL); + denali->buf.buf = kzalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); if (!denali->buf.buf) return -ENOMEM;Just as a suggestion, maybe just replace this call with xzalloc, getting rid of meaningless GFP_KERNEL as well, and dropping the OOM check below?
Since kzalloc() is not a macro to xzalloc() anymore but uses calloc() instead, which actually may return NULL, I am not sure if this is a better approach. But I am not that deep into the topic of differences between *alloc calls to definitely decide that. Regards, Enrico -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5080 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
