Guido, Am 18.12.2014 um 02:18 schrieb Guido MartÃnez: > Hi Richard, > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:35:36PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> There is no need to allocate new ones every time, we can reuse >> the existing ones. >> This makes the code cleaner and more easy to follow. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 31 +++++-------------------------- >> drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c | 11 +++++++---- >> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c >> index db3defd..9507702 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c >> @@ -1446,19 +1446,6 @@ int ubi_update_fastmap(struct ubi_device *ubi) >> } >> >> new_fm->used_blocks = ubi->fm_size / ubi->leb_size; >> - >> - for (i = 0; i < new_fm->used_blocks; i++) { >> - new_fm->e[i] = kmem_cache_alloc(ubi_wl_entry_slab, GFP_KERNEL); >> - if (!new_fm->e[i]) { >> - while (i--) >> - kfree(new_fm->e[i]); >> - >> - kfree(new_fm); >> - mutex_unlock(&ubi->fm_mutex); >> - return -ENOMEM; >> - } >> - } >> - >> old_fm = ubi->fm; >> ubi->fm = NULL; >> >> @@ -1494,12 +1481,9 @@ int ubi_update_fastmap(struct ubi_device *ubi) >> ubi_err(ubi, "could not erase old fastmap PEB"); >> goto err; >> } >> - >> - new_fm->e[i]->pnum = old_fm->e[i]->pnum; >> - new_fm->e[i]->ec = old_fm->e[i]->ec; >> + new_fm->e[i] = old_fm->e[i]; >> } else { >> - new_fm->e[i]->pnum = tmp_e->pnum; >> - new_fm->e[i]->ec = tmp_e->ec; >> + new_fm->e[i] = tmp_e; >> >> if (old_fm) >> ubi_wl_put_fm_peb(ubi, old_fm->e[i], i, >> @@ -1524,16 +1508,13 @@ int ubi_update_fastmap(struct ubi_device *ubi) >> i, 0); >> goto err; >> } >> - >> - new_fm->e[0]->pnum = old_fm->e[0]->pnum; >> + new_fm->e[0] = old_fm->e[0]; >> new_fm->e[0]->ec = ret; >> } else { >> /* we've got a new anchor PEB, return the old one */ >> ubi_wl_put_fm_peb(ubi, old_fm->e[0], 0, >> old_fm->to_be_tortured[0]); >> - >> - new_fm->e[0]->pnum = tmp_e->pnum; >> - new_fm->e[0]->ec = tmp_e->ec; >> + new_fm->e[0] = tmp_e; >> } >> } else { >> if (!tmp_e) { >> @@ -1546,9 +1527,7 @@ int ubi_update_fastmap(struct ubi_device *ubi) >> ret = -ENOSPC; >> goto err; >> } >> - >> - new_fm->e[0]->pnum = tmp_e->pnum; >> - new_fm->e[0]->ec = tmp_e->ec; >> + new_fm->e[0] = tmp_e; >> } >> >> down_write(&ubi->work_sem); >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c >> index 47b215f..523d8a4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c >> @@ -1014,9 +1014,6 @@ int ubi_wl_put_fm_peb(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct >> ubi_wl_entry *fm_e, >> e = fm_e; >> ubi_assert(e->ec >= 0); >> ubi->lookuptbl[pnum] = e; >> - } else { >> - e->ec = fm_e->ec; >> - kfree(fm_e); >> } >> >> spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock); >> @@ -2008,9 +2005,15 @@ int ubi_wl_init(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct >> ubi_attach_info *ai) >> >> dbg_wl("found %i PEBs", found_pebs); >> >> - if (ubi->fm) >> + if (ubi->fm) { >> ubi_assert(ubi->good_peb_count == \ >> found_pebs + ubi->fm->used_blocks); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < ubi->fm->used_blocks; i++) { >> + e = ubi->fm->e[i]; >> + ubi->lookuptbl[e->pnum] = e; >> + } >> + } > Should this be in a separate patch? The commit log doesn't mention it.
Hmm, looks like a fragment from the memleak fix. I've split up a lot of patches, maybe some hunks sneaked into other patches. Anyway, will fixup! Thanks a lot for reviewing! //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
