2022-03-16 07:08:13

by Xiaoke Wang

Subject: [PATCH] staging: mmal-vchiq: clear redundant item named bulk_scratch

From: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>

bulk_scratch is not used anywhere and the original allocation of it
does not have proper check.
Deleting it directly seems to be a good choice.

Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
index 76d3f03..6615c7a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
@@ -168,9 +168,6 @@ struct vchiq_mmal_instance {
/* ensure serialised access to service */
struct mutex vchiq_mutex;

- /* vmalloc page to receive scratch bulk xfers into */
- void *bulk_scratch;
-
struct idr context_map;
/* protect accesses to context_map */
struct mutex context_map_lock;
@@ -1847,8 +1844,6 @@ int vchiq_mmal_finalise(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance)
flush_workqueue(instance->bulk_wq);
destroy_workqueue(instance->bulk_wq);

- vfree(instance->bulk_scratch);
-
idr_destroy(&instance->context_map);

kfree(instance);
@@ -1908,7 +1903,6 @@ int vchiq_mmal_init(struct vchiq_mmal_instance **out_instance)

mutex_init(&instance->vchiq_mutex);

- instance->bulk_scratch = vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE);
instance->vchiq_instance = vchiq_instance;

mutex_init(&instance->context_map_lock);
@@ -1939,7 +1933,6 @@ int vchiq_mmal_init(struct vchiq_mmal_instance **out_instance)
vchiq_close_service(instance->service_handle);
destroy_workqueue(instance->bulk_wq);
err_free:
- vfree(instance->bulk_scratch);
kfree(instance);
err_shutdown_vchiq:
vchiq_shutdown(vchiq_instance);
--

2022-03-17 04:12:33

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: mmal-vchiq: clear redundant item named bulk_scratch

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 01:24:12AM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
>
> bulk_scratch is not used anywhere and the original allocation of it
> does not have proper check.
> Deleting it directly seems to be a good choice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>

Thanks!

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

regards,
dan carpenter