On 21/07/15 18:59, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/21/2015 02:41 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
Thanks Stephen for review,
On 20/07/15 22:11, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/20/2015 07:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bde5528
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
@@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
+
+static int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
+ const struct nvmem_config *cfg)
+{
+ struct nvmem_cell **cells;
+ const struct nvmem_cell_info *info = cfg->cells;
+ int i, rval;
+
+ cells = kzalloc(sizeof(*cells) * cfg->ncells, GFP_KERNEL);
kcalloc?
Only reason for using kzalloc is to give the code more flexibility to
free any pointer in the array in case of errors.
Still lost. The arrays are allocated down below in the for loop. This is
allocating a bunch of pointers so using kcalloc() here avoids problems
with overflows causing kzalloc() to allocate fewer pointers than
requested. I'm not suggesting we replace the for loop with a kcalloc,
just this single line.
Yes we could replace the loop with kcalloc, but the problem is how can
we handle freeing an element from that array?
AFAIK we can only free the full array rather than each element if we
allocate it via kcalloc, correct me if Am wrong?
+ if (!cells)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < cfg->ncells; i++) {
+ cells[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(**cells), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!cells[i]) {
+ rval = -ENOMEM;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
