On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:33 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 10:41 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: >> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Souptick Joarder >> > > <jrdr.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Krzysztof Hałasa <khal...@piap.pl> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > Souptick Joarder <jrdr.li...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > > > >> > > > > > We should use dma_pool_zalloc instead of dma_pool_alloc/memset >> > >> > [] >> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/ixp4xx_hss.c >> > > > > > b/drivers/net/wan/ixp4xx_hss.c >> > >> > [] >> > > > > > @@ -976,10 +976,9 @@ static int init_hdlc_queues(struct port *port) >> > > > > > return -ENOMEM; >> > > > > > } >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - if (!(port->desc_tab = dma_pool_alloc(dma_pool, GFP_KERNEL, >> > > > > > - &port->desc_tab_phys))) >> > > > > > + if (!(port->desc_tab = dma_pool_zalloc(dma_pool, GFP_KERNEL, >> > > > > > + >> > > > > > &port->desc_tab_phys))) >> > > > > > return -ENOMEM; >> > > > > > - memset(port->desc_tab, 0, POOL_ALLOC_SIZE); >> > > > > > memset(port->rx_buff_tab, 0, sizeof(port->rx_buff_tab)); /* >> > > > > > tables */ >> > > > > > memset(port->tx_buff_tab, 0, sizeof(port->tx_buff_tab)); >> > > > > >> > > > > This look fine, feel free to send it to the netdev mailing list for >> > > > > inclusion. >> > > > >> > > > Including netdev mailing list based as requested. >> > > > > Acked-by: Krzysztof Halasa <khal...@piap.pl> >> > >> > [] >> > > Any comment on this patch ? >> > >> > Shouldn't the one in drivers/net/ethernet/xscale/ixp4xx_eth.c >> > also be changed? >> >> Yes, you are right. Do you want me to include it in same patch? > > Your choice. I would use a single patch.
There are few other places where the same change is applicable. I am planning to put all those changes in a single patch. It includes changes in drivers/net/ethernet/xscale/ixp4xx_eth.c You can review this patch separately. >
