From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Henrik Rydberg" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] HID: hid-multitouch: fix wrong protocol detection Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 21:56:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20120509195632.GA12406@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <1336136030-18503-1-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@gmail.com> <1336136030-18503-2-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@gmail.com> <20120506190146.GA12571@polaris.bitmath.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtprelay-b12.telenor.se ([62.127.194.21]:52109 "EHLO smtprelay-b12.telenor.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754439Ab2EITvR (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Benjamin Tissoires Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Jiri Kosina , Stephane Chatty , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Why not skip the pointer here? > > well, the idea was to keep the memory footprint low. As these values > are only needed at init, then I freed them once I finished using them. > I can of course skip the pointer, but in that case, wouldn't the > struct declaration be worthless? My bad, I misread the placement of the free() statement. I was also concerned about memory, since HID is big enough a memory hog as it is. Barring the added complexity of this patch, it now makes more sense. Acked-by: Henrik Rydberg Thanks, Henrik