Re: [PATCH] scsi: Remove unnecessary calls to memset after dma_alloc_coherent

[Alex Dewar]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > dma_alloc_coherent() now zeroes memory after allocation, so additional
> > calls to memset() afterwards are unnecessary. Remove them.
>
> I suggest to reconsider the distribution of recipients also for this patch
> according to the fields âCcâ and âToâ.

Thanks. I'll do this in a v2/RESEND.
>
>
> â
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c
> â
> > @@ -3067,13 +3064,12 @@ static int adpt_i2o_build_sys_table(void)
> >  	sys_tbl_len = sizeof(struct i2o_sys_tbl) +	// Header + IOPs
> >  				(hba_count) * sizeof(struct i2o_sys_tbl_entry);
> >
> > -	sys_tbl = dma_alloc_coherent(&pHba->pDev->dev,
> > -				sys_tbl_len, &sys_tbl_pa, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	sys_tbl = dma_alloc_coherent(&pHba->pDev->dev, sys_tbl_len,
> > +				     &sys_tbl_pa, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!sys_tbl) {
> â
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_init.c
> > @@ -244,28 +244,22 @@ static int mvs_alloc(struct mvs_info *mvi, struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> â
> > -	mvi->slot = dma_alloc_coherent(mvi->dev,
> > -				       sizeof(*mvi->slot) * slot_nr,
> > +	mvi->slot = dma_alloc_coherent(mvi->dev, sizeof(*mvi->slot) * slot_nr,
> >  				       &mvi->slot_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!mvi->slot)
> â
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_isr.c
> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ qla24xx_process_abts(struct scsi_qla_host *vha, void *pkt)
> >  	    (uint8_t *)abts, sizeof(*abts));
> >
> >  	rsp_els = dma_alloc_coherent(&ha->pdev->dev, sizeof(*rsp_els), &dma,
> > -	    GFP_KERNEL);
> > +				     GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!rsp_els) {
> â
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_mbx.c
> > @@ -4887,15 +4887,13 @@ qla25xx_set_els_cmds_supported(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> >  	    "Entered %s.\n", __func__);
> >
> >  	els_cmd_map = dma_alloc_coherent(&ha->pdev->dev, ELS_CMD_MAP_SIZE,
> > -	    &els_cmd_map_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +					 &els_cmd_map_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!els_cmd_map) {
> â
>
> I find it safer to integrate such source code reformattings by
> another update step which will be separated from the proposed deletion
> of unwanted function calls.

Good point. This whitespace was autoformatted by Coccinelle, probably
due to my bad SmPL skills.

Best,
Alex


>
> Regards,
> Markus