From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WtGC3-0004Ej-Im for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:57:56 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ath10k: provide firmware crash info via debugfs. References: <1401904902-5842-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <87y4xal6vb.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <5391F51B.4020103@candelatech.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 15:57:26 +0300 In-Reply-To: <5391F51B.4020103@candelatech.com> (Ben Greear's message of "Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:06:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87zjhoj2rt.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Ben Greear Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Ben Greear writes: > On 06/06/2014 02:33 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > >>> + kfree(buffer); >>> + goto save_regs_and_restart; >>> + } >>> + >>> + ath10k_dbg_save_fw_dbg_buffer(ar, buffer, >>> + dbuf.length); >>> + kfree(buffer); >> >> Instead of doing atomic allocations multiple times in a loop, would it >> be better to allocate just one buffer before the loop and free it >> afterwards? > > There is no hard guarantee that the buffer lengths are the same, > so I think it needs to remain as is. Would rather not crap out > because firmware suddenly got more clever... This is related to my earlier comment about having a max len for the buffers. So why not come up with a sane max length, allocate once a temporary buffer of that length and use the same buffer in the loop? -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k