Use pci_zalloc_consistent for allocating zeroed
memory and remove unnecessary memset function.
Done using Coccinelle.
Generated-by: scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/kzalloc-simple.cocci
0-day tested with no failures.
Suggested-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <[email protected]>
---
drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c | 19 ++++++-------------
drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c | 5 ++---
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
index 2c8cfa2..62959d0 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
@@ -2222,10 +2222,9 @@ static int megasas_get_ld_vf_affiliation_111(struct megasas_instance *instance,
memset(instance->vf_affiliation_111, 0,
sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION_111));
else {
- new_affiliation_111 =
- pci_alloc_consistent(instance->pdev,
- sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION_111),
- &new_affiliation_111_h);
+ new_affiliation_111 =
+ pci_zalloc_consistent(instance->pdev,
+ sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION_111),
+ &new_affiliation_111_h);
if (!new_affiliation_111) {
dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &instance->pdev->dev, "SR-IOV: Couldn't allocate "
"memory for new affiliation for scsi%d\n",
@@ -2233,8 +2232,6 @@ static int megasas_get_ld_vf_affiliation_111(struct megasas_instance *instance,
megasas_return_cmd(instance, cmd);
return -ENOMEM;
}
- memset(new_affiliation_111, 0,
- sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION_111));
}
memset(dcmd->mbox.b, 0, MFI_MBOX_SIZE);
@@ -2331,11 +2328,9 @@ static int megasas_get_ld_vf_affiliation_12(struct megasas_instance *instance,
memset(instance->vf_affiliation, 0, (MAX_LOGICAL_DRIVES + 1) *
sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION));
else {
- new_affiliation =
- pci_alloc_consistent(instance->pdev,
- (MAX_LOGICAL_DRIVES + 1) *
- sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION),
- &new_affiliation_h);
+ new_affiliation =
+ pci_zalloc_consistent(instance->pdev,
+ (MAX_LOGICAL_DRIVES + 1) *
+ sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION),
+ &new_affiliation_h);
if (!new_affiliation) {
dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &instance->pdev->dev, "SR-IOV: Couldn't allocate "
"memory for new affiliation for scsi%d\n",
@@ -2343,8 +2338,6 @@ static int megasas_get_ld_vf_affiliation_12(struct megasas_instance *instance,
megasas_return_cmd(instance, cmd);
return -ENOMEM;
}
- memset(new_affiliation, 0, (MAX_LOGICAL_DRIVES + 1) *
- sizeof(struct MR_LD_VF_AFFILIATION));
}
memset(dcmd->mbox.b, 0, MFI_MBOX_SIZE);
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
index 65dc4fe..5f61b93 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
@@ -690,15 +690,14 @@ megasas_alloc_rdpq_fusion(struct megasas_instance *instance)
array_size = sizeof(struct MPI2_IOC_INIT_RDPQ_ARRAY_ENTRY) *
MAX_MSIX_QUEUES_FUSION;
- fusion->rdpq_virt = pci_alloc_consistent(instance->pdev, array_size,
- &fusion->rdpq_phys);
+ fusion->rdpq_virt = pci_zalloc_consistent(instance->pdev, array_size,
+ &fusion->rdpq_phys);
if (!fusion->rdpq_virt) {
dev_err(&instance->pdev->dev,
"Failed from %s %d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
return -ENOMEM;
}
- memset(fusion->rdpq_virt, 0, array_size);
msix_count = instance->msix_vectors > 0 ? instance->msix_vectors : 1;
fusion->reply_frames_desc_pool = dma_pool_create("mr_rdpq",
--
2.7.4
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Himanshu Jha [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 9:18 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Himanshu Jha
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: Use zeroing memory allocator than
> allocator/memset
>
> Use pci_zalloc_consistent for allocating zeroed memory and remove
> unnecessary memset function.
>
> Done using Coccinelle.
> Generated-by: scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/kzalloc-simple.cocci
> 0-day tested with no failures.
>
> Suggested-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c | 19 ++++++-------------
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c | 5 ++---
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
Hi Himanshu,
I can see one more allocation done in megasas_get_seq_num() that could
make use of these changes.
Rest of the changes looks fine.
Also, there is a driver update patchset that I am planning to post today.
Adding this patch first might require additional rebasing of this
patchset.
Would you be ok if I send a separate patch for this along with the change
mentioned above once my patch series gets committed?
That would save me some rebasing effort. :-)
Thanks,
Shivasharan
Hi Shivashran,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:52:54PM +0530, Shivasharan Srikanteshwara wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Himanshu Jha [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 9:18 PM
> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; Himanshu Jha
> > <[email protected]>
> > Subject: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: Use zeroing memory allocator than
> > allocator/memset
> >
> > Use pci_zalloc_consistent for allocating zeroed memory and remove
> > unnecessary memset function.
> >
> > Done using Coccinelle.
> > Generated-by: scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/kzalloc-simple.cocci
> > 0-day tested with no failures.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c | 19 ++++++-------------
> > drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c | 5 ++---
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Hi Himanshu,
> I can see one more allocation done in megasas_get_seq_num() that could
> make use of these changes.
Yes, I missed that case! Thanks for pointing that out.
> Also, there is a driver update patchset that I am planning to post today.
> Adding this patch first might require additional rebasing of this
> patchset.
> Would you be ok if I send a separate patch for this along with the change
> mentioned above once my patch series gets committed?
> That would save me some rebasing effort. :-)
Yeah, sure! I have no objections for it. But this patch was not in the
patchseries that I sent a while ago https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/30/77
Thanks
Himanshu Jha