From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:46977 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752219Ab1KSTkp (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:40:45 -0500 Received: by ghbz2 with SMTP id z2so1654014ghb.19 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:40:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:40:37 -0300 From: Ezequiel To: Hans de Goede Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, moinejf@free.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH] [media] gspca: replaced static allocation by video_device_alloc/video_device_release Message-ID: <20111119194037.GA3709@localhost> References: <20111119185015.GA3048@localhost> <4EC80176.5000802@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EC80176.5000802@redhat.com> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:20:22PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/19/2011 07:50 PM, Ezequiel wrote: > > Pushed video_device initialization into a separate function. > > Replaced static allocation of struct video_device by > > video_device_alloc/video_device_release usage. > > NACK! I see a video_device_release call here, but not a > video_device_alloc, also you're messing with quite sensitive code > here (because a usb device can be unplugged at any time, including > when the /dev/video node is open by a process), and changing it > from static to dynamic allocation my have more consequences > then you see at first (I did not analyze all the code paths > for the proposed change, since the last time I audited them for > the current static allocation of the videodevice struct code took > me hours). > > Also static allocation (as part of the driver struct) in general is > better then dynamic as it needs less code and helps avoiding memory > fragmentation. > > All in all I cannot help but feel that you're diving into a piece > of code with some drive by shooting style patch without knowing > the code in question at all, please don't do that! > > Regards, > > Hans > Hi Hans, Sorry, really dont know what happened, I sent an incomplete patch version. (some vim yank-key error). I understand your observations about static vs dynamic, but please could you review the right patch. Thanks, Ezequiel.