Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 12:06:18PM CET, era...@mellanox.com wrote:
>
>
>On 1/20/2019 12:03 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:59:10PM CET, era...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static void
>>> +devlink_health_buffers_destroy(struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list,
>>> + u64 size);
>>
>> Avoid fwd declarations.
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> +static struct devlink_health_buffer **
>>> +devlink_health_buffers_create(u64 size)
>>> +{
>>> + struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list;
>>> + u64 num_of_buffers = DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(size);
>>> + u64 i;
>>> +
>>> + buffers_list = kcalloc(num_of_buffers,
>>> + sizeof(struct devlink_health_buffer *),
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!buffers_list)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < num_of_buffers; i++) {
>>> + struct devlink_health_buffer *buffer;
>>> + void *data;
>>> +
>>> + buffer = kzalloc(sizeof(*buffer), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + data = kzalloc(DEVLINK_HEALTH_BUFFER_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!buffer || !data) {
>>> + kfree(buffer);
>>> + kfree(data);
>>> + goto buffers_cleanup;
>>> + }
>>> + buffers_list[i] = buffer;
>>> + buffer->data = data;
>>> + }
>>> + devlink_health_buffers_reset(buffers_list, num_of_buffers);
>>> +
>>> + return buffers_list;
>>> +
>>> +buffers_cleanup:
>>> + devlink_health_buffers_destroy(buffers_list, --i);
>>
>> Just do for-kfree here.
>>
>>
>>> + kfree(buffers_list);
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void
>>> +devlink_health_buffers_destroy(struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list,
>>> + u64 num_of_buffers)
>>> +{
>>> + u64 i;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < num_of_buffers; i++) {
>>> + kfree(buffers_list[i]->data);
>>> + kfree(buffers_list[i]);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>Hi Jiri,
>The series is merged. I can take the relevant comments as send as fix
>with the rest of the series if you wish to.
I haven't have time to review this due to travel. I think it was mistake
to merge this as the buffer api is wrong in my opinion. I would vote for
revert if possible.
