Hello,
As there are many places in drm code where drm_alloc + memset is used
this patch series introduces drm_zalloc and also makes use of drm_calloc where
needed. Most of these patches save some bytes so the benefit is a few kB saved
(gcc 4.1.2) with patch applied. Also some small (style, etc.) things are fixed.
This patch series does the conversion drm tree-wide. All patches were compile
tested.
Patches are against 2.6.23-rc3-mm1. Please review and apply.
Regards,
Mariusz
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:57:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As there are many places in drm code where drm_alloc + memset is used
> this patch series introduces drm_zalloc and also makes use of drm_calloc where
> needed. Most of these patches save some bytes so the benefit is a few kB saved
> (gcc 4.1.2) with patch applied. Also some small (style, etc.) things are fixed.
> This patch series does the conversion drm tree-wide. All patches were compile
> tested.
Please just convert it to plain kzalloc/kcalloc and kill these utterly useless
wrappers instead.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:57:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As there are many places in drm code where drm_alloc + memset is used
>> this patch series introduces drm_zalloc and also makes use of drm_calloc where
>> needed. Most of these patches save some bytes so the benefit is a few kB saved
>> (gcc 4.1.2) with patch applied. Also some small (style, etc.) things are fixed.
>> This patch series does the conversion drm tree-wide. All patches were compile
>> tested.
>
> Please just convert it to plain kzalloc/kcalloc and kill these utterly useless
> wrappers instead.
>
>
The wrappers aren't useless the drm alloc/free passes in a memory space
for debugging purposes so we can track memory abuse when developing,
but drm_zalloc shouldjust alias to drm_calloc really..
Dave.
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 21:50 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:57:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As there are many places in drm code where drm_alloc + memset is used
> >> this patch series introduces drm_zalloc and also makes use of drm_calloc where
> >> needed. Most of these patches save some bytes so the benefit is a few kB saved
> >> (gcc 4.1.2) with patch applied. Also some small (style, etc.) things are fixed.
> >> This patch series does the conversion drm tree-wide. All patches were compile
> >> tested.
> >
> > Please just convert it to plain kzalloc/kcalloc and kill these utterly useless
> > wrappers instead.
> >
> >
>
> The wrappers aren't useless the drm alloc/free passes in a memory space
> for debugging purposes so we can track memory abuse when developing,
Do we ever use that, though? Having to pass in the pointer, the size
and the area just to free memory, sure is a bitch.
> but drm_zalloc shouldjust alias to drm_calloc really..
drm_calloc calls kcalloc which performs an integer overflow check on the
'n' and 'size' arguments, which isn't needed for drm_zalloc. Small
detail, of course, but I don't see the problem with aliasing to kzalloc.
Kristian
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:20:32PM -0400, Kristian H?gsberg wrote:
> > The wrappers aren't useless the drm alloc/free passes in a memory space
> > for debugging purposes so we can track memory abuse when developing,
>
> Do we ever use that, though? Having to pass in the pointer, the size
> and the area just to free memory, sure is a bitch.
Note the slab has a memory tracking feature that accounts memory to
callers of the allocator. IF that's not enough for you please help
improving the common code instead of inventing your own.
>
> Note the slab has a memory tracking feature that accounts memory to
> callers of the allocator. IF that's not enough for you please help
> improving the common code instead of inventing your own.
Christoph that code was written over 6-7 years ago, feel free to provide a
patch for it to use the slab allocator, we only turn this code on though
when developing new drivers, I don't think it ever gets used outside of
that.. we don't need the overhead of the memory tracking in normal use..
Please stop implying that all the code in the drm is magically new and
that we should be reusing kernel infrastructure that wasn't even written
when the code first appeared.. or provide patches...
Dave.