On 07/03/18 16:16, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 12:47 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
diff --git a/lib/scatterlist.c b/lib/scatterlist.c
index 9884be50a2c0..e13a759c5c49 100644
--- a/lib/scatterlist.c
+++ b/lib/scatterlist.c
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ struct scatterlist *sgl_alloc_order(unsigned long length, 
unsigned int order,
  {
        unsigned int chunk_len = PAGE_SIZE << order;
        struct scatterlist *sgl, *sg;
-       unsigned int nent;
+       unsigned int nent, i;
nent = round_up(length, chunk_len) >> (PAGE_SHIFT + order); @@ -517,11 +517,12 @@ struct scatterlist *sgl_alloc_order(unsigned long length, unsigned int order, sg_init_table(sgl, nent);
        sg = sgl;
+       i = 0;
        while (length) {
                struct page *page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
if (!page) {
-                       sgl_free(sgl);
+                       sgl_free_n_order(sgl, i, order);
                        return NULL;
                }
@@ -529,6 +530,7 @@ struct scatterlist *sgl_alloc_order(unsigned long length, unsigned int order,
                sg_set_page(sg, page, chunk_len, 0);
                length -= chunk_len;
                sg = sg_next(sg);
+               i++;
        }

Since the entire sg-list is zero-initialized before this loop starts, since
the sg-list is not chained onto another sg-list before this function returns
and since sgl_free_n_order() checks whether or not each page pointer is NULL
before freeing it I think we don't need the new loop variable 'i' and that
we can call sgl_free_order() instead of sgl_free_n_order().

Yes true, I've only realized that in a later patch. Can rebase to move that change earlier in.

Regards,

Tvrtko

Reply via email to