On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:05:37 -0700
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:50:03 +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > + if (skb)
> > + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
>
> I think dev_kfree_skb_any() accepts NULL
yes, I'll drop the if
> > +
> > + /* Allocate and rx ring. 4kb = 512 entries */
> > + ip->rxr = (unsigned long *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!ip->rxr) {
> > + pr_err("ioc3-eth: rx ring allocation failed\n");
> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto out_stop;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Allocate tx rings. 16kb = 128 bufs. */
> > + ip->txr = (struct ioc3_etxd *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 2);
> > + if (!ip->txr) {
> > + pr_err("ioc3-eth: tx ring allocation failed\n");
> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto out_stop;
> > + }
>
> Please just use kcalloc()/kmalloc_array() here,
both allocation will be replaced in patch 11 with dma_direct_alloc_pages.
So I hope I don't need to change it here.
Out of curiosity does kcalloc/kmalloc_array give me the same guarantees about
alignment ? rx ring needs to be 4KB aligned, tx ring 16KB aligned.
>, and make sure the flags
> are set to GFP_KERNEL whenever possible. Here and in ioc3_alloc_rings()
> it looks like GFP_ATOMIC is unnecessary.
yes, I'll change it
Thomas.
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
HRB 247165 (AG München)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
