.
.

On 2/28/18 12:06 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
+
+/**
+ * gen_pool_dma_alloc() - allocate special memory from the pool for DMA usage
+ * @pool: pool to allocate from
+ * @size: number of bytes to allocate from the pool
+ * @dma: dma-view physical address return value.  Use NULL if unneeded.
+ *
+ * Allocate the requested number of bytes from the specified pool.
+ * Uses the pool allocation function (with first-fit algorithm by default).
+ * Can not be used in NMI handler on architectures without
+ * NMI-safe cmpxchg implementation.
+ *
+ * Return:
+ * * address of the memory allocated   - success
+ * * NULL                              - error
+ */
+void *gen_pool_dma_alloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size, dma_addr_t *dma);
+

OK, so gen_pool_dma_alloc() is defined here, which believe is the API line being drawn for this series.

so,
.
.
.

/**
- * gen_pool_dma_alloc - allocate special memory from the pool for DMA usage
+ * gen_pool_dma_alloc() - allocate special memory from the pool for DMA usage
   * @pool: pool to allocate from
   * @size: number of bytes to allocate from the pool
   * @dma: dma-view physical address return value.  Use NULL if unneeded.
@@ -342,14 +566,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(gen_pool_alloc_algo);
   * Uses the pool allocation function (with first-fit algorithm by default).
   * Can not be used in NMI handler on architectures without
   * NMI-safe cmpxchg implementation.
+ *
+ * Return:
+ * * address of the memory allocated   - success
+ * * NULL                              - error
   */
  void *gen_pool_dma_alloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size, dma_addr_t *dma)
  {
        unsigned long vaddr;
- if (!pool)
-               return NULL;
-
why is this being removed?  I don't believe this code was getting removed from your v17 series patches.
        vaddr = gen_pool_alloc(pool, size);
        if (!vaddr)
                return NULL;
@@ -362,10 +587,10 @@ void *gen_pool_dma_alloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t 
size, dma_addr_t *dma)
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(gen_pool_dma_alloc);
Otherwise, looks good,

Reviewed-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.li...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to