On Friday, November 24, 2017 09:48:14 PM SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:45:54 +0100
>
> A few update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus Elfring (4):
> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two functions
This patch removes the information about the device for which the allocation
fails.
> Return an error code only as a constant in dlfb_realloc_framebuffer()
This patch depends on the earlier patch (which is not being merged) so please
re-base it if you want it to be applied.
> Improve a size determination in dlfb_alloc_urb_list()
Patch queued for 4.16, thanks.
> Delete an unnecessary return statement in two functions
Patch queued for 4.16, thanks.
> drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c | 23 +++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two functions
>
> This patch removes the information about the device for which the allocation fails.
* Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use case?
* Are you looking for any more clarification?
>> Improve a size determination in dlfb_alloc_urb_list()
>
> Patch queued for 4.16, thanks.
Thanks for your acceptance of other change possibilities.
Regards,
Markus
On Friday, December 29, 2017 07:10:00 PM SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two functions
> >
> > This patch removes the information about the device for which the allocation fails.
>
> * Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use case?
Yes, there is more information available currently in the driver and
I see no real improvement in removing it.
> * Are you looking for any more clarification?
I will not apply any of such patches for now. The only exception
being drivers that support hardware that can have only one instance
in the system (but it needs to be explicitly stated in the patch
description and the patch needs to be reviewed by a someone else
than the author).
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
>> * Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use case?
>
> Yes,
Interesting …
> there is more information available currently in the driver and
> I see no real improvement in removing it.
>
>> * Are you looking for any more clarification?
>
> I will not apply any of such patches for now. The only exception
> being drivers that support hardware that can have only one instance
> in the system …
Thanks for your feedback.
> and the patch needs to be reviewed by a someone else than the author).
I am curious if this will ever happen again for my update suggestions
in such a software area.
Regards,
Markus
From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:24:34 +0100
Two update suggestions were taken into account
from static source code analysis.
Markus Elfring (2):
Return an error code only as a constant
Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
---
v2:
Rebased on Linux next-20180105.
drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c | 13 +++----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
2.15.1
From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:02:36 +0100
* Return an error code without storing it in an intermediate variable.
* Delete the label "error" and local variable "retval"
which became unnecessary with this refactoring.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
---
v2:
This update suggestion was rebased on source files from the software
"Linux next-20180105".
drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c | 9 ++-------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
index 99ce445986b3..560a6b6044a5 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
@@ -1157,7 +1157,6 @@ static struct fb_ops dlfb_ops = {
*/
static int dlfb_realloc_framebuffer(struct dlfb_data *dev, struct fb_info *info)
{
- int retval = -ENOMEM;
int old_len = info->fix.smem_len;
int new_len;
unsigned char *old_fb = info->screen_base;
@@ -1175,7 +1174,7 @@ static int dlfb_realloc_framebuffer(struct dlfb_data *dev, struct fb_info *info)
new_fb = vmalloc(new_len);
if (!new_fb) {
pr_err("Virtual framebuffer alloc failed\n");
- goto error;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
if (info->screen_base) {
@@ -1203,11 +1202,7 @@ static int dlfb_realloc_framebuffer(struct dlfb_data *dev, struct fb_info *info)
dev->backing_buffer = new_back;
}
}
-
- retval = 0;
-
-error:
- return retval;
+ return 0;
}
/*
--
2.15.1
From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:07:36 +0100
Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
---
v2:
This update suggestion was rebased on source files from the software
"Linux next-20180105" together with an other change combination.
drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
index 560a6b6044a5..0c781b077aab 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/udlfb.c
@@ -1172,10 +1172,8 @@ static int dlfb_realloc_framebuffer(struct dlfb_data *dev, struct fb_info *info)
* Alloc system memory for virtual framebuffer
*/
new_fb = vmalloc(new_len);
- if (!new_fb) {
- pr_err("Virtual framebuffer alloc failed\n");
+ if (!new_fb)
return -ENOMEM;
- }
if (info->screen_base) {
memcpy(new_fb, old_fb, old_len);
--
2.15.1
On Sunday, January 07, 2018 02:34:51 PM SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:02:36 +0100
>
> * Return an error code without storing it in an intermediate variable.
>
> * Delete the label "error" and local variable "retval"
> which became unnecessary with this refactoring.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Patch queued for 4.17, thanks.
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics