Hello Vladimir, On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 04:58:11PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:08:05PM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > > I thought about a patch like the following (compile tested only). What > > do you think? > > To be honest, there are several things I don't really like about this > patch. > > - I really struggled with applying it in the current format. Could you > please post the output of git format-patch in the future? This is the output of `git format-patch` shifted right by a tab. > - You addressed dpaa_set_coalesce() but not also dpaa_fq_setup() > - You misrepresented the patch content by saying you only allocate size > for online CPUs in the commit message. But you allocate for all > possible CPUs. > - You only kfree(needs_revert) in the error (revert_values) case, but > not in the normal (return 0) case. > - The netdev coding style is to sort the lines with variable > declarations in reverse order of line length (they call this "reverse > Christmas tree"). Your patch broke that order. > - You should use kcalloc() instead of kmalloc_array() + memset() > > I have prepared and tested the attached alternative patch on a board and > I am preparing to submit it myself, if you don't have any objection. Sure, not a problem. You just asked how that would be possible, and I decided to craft patch to show what I had in mind. I am glad we have a way moving forward. Thanks for solving it.
