2019-05-27 11:20:16

by Jisheng Zhang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: stmmac: Switch to devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs

Make use of devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs() to simplify the code.

Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
index a87ec70b19f1..08022fbcb67a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
@@ -4243,9 +4243,9 @@ int stmmac_dvr_probe(struct device *device,
u32 queue, maxq;
int ret = 0;

- ndev = alloc_etherdev_mqs(sizeof(struct stmmac_priv),
- MTL_MAX_TX_QUEUES,
- MTL_MAX_RX_QUEUES);
+ ndev = devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs(sizeof(struct stmmac_priv),
+ MTL_MAX_TX_QUEUES,
+ MTL_MAX_RX_QUEUES);
if (!ndev)
return -ENOMEM;

@@ -4277,8 +4277,7 @@ int stmmac_dvr_probe(struct device *device,
priv->wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("stmmac_wq");
if (!priv->wq) {
dev_err(priv->device, "failed to create workqueue\n");
- ret = -ENOMEM;
- goto error_wq;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}

INIT_WORK(&priv->service_task, stmmac_service_task);
@@ -4434,8 +4433,6 @@ int stmmac_dvr_probe(struct device *device,
}
error_hw_init:
destroy_workqueue(priv->wq);
-error_wq:
- free_netdev(ndev);

return ret;
}
@@ -4472,7 +4469,6 @@ int stmmac_dvr_remove(struct device *dev)
stmmac_mdio_unregister(ndev);
destroy_workqueue(priv->wq);
mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
- free_netdev(ndev);

return 0;
}
--
2.20.1


2019-05-28 18:09:27

by David Miller

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: stmmac: Switch to devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs


You never even tried to compiled this patch.

2019-05-29 02:31:18

by Jisheng Zhang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: stmmac: Switch to devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs

On Tue, 28 May 2019 11:07:53 -0700 David Miller wrote:

>
> You never even tried to compiled this patch.
>

oops, my bad. I patched the another branch and tested the patch but when I
manually patch net-next tree, I made a mistake. Sorry.