W dniu 3 marca 2011 04:40 użytkownik [email protected] <[email protected]> napisał: > b43-phy0: Loading firmware version 478.104 (2008-07-01 00:50:23) > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c:2262 kzalloc 332 > bytes > b43-phy0: Loading firmware version 478.104 (2008-07-01 00:50:23) > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 60 bytes
2011/3/3 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > b43-phy0: Loading firmware version 478.104 (2008-07-01 00:50:23) > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes > compat-wireless-2011-02-25/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c:824 kzalloc 96 bytes 824 line is: [struct b43_dmaring *]ring = kzalloc(sizeof(*ring), GFP_KERNEL); Does anyone know why sometime we allocate 60b and sometimes 96b? It's always the same struct... :| Could be STA vs. AP related but... how? I don't see a way. Chris: you didn't follow kcalloc-s with debugging messages. I can see that from lack of debugging for dma.c:832: ring->meta = kcalloc(ring->nr_slots, sizeof(struct b43_dmadesc_meta), GFP_KERNEL); The kcalloc-s in dma.c should not matter as they are only executed together with your's kzalloc (dma.c:824). The one in phy_lp.c has nice "free", should be safe, unless we hit some infinity loop. So it seems there is not any allocation bug in b43... -- Rafał _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
