| Message ID | ab32ed8f-2813-45ff-b014-fdfd2107d624@CO9EHSMHS025.ehs.local |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jagannadha.sutradharudu-teki@xilinx.com> wrote: > Squash the malloc()+memset() combo in favor of calloc(). > > Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com> > Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > --- > drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c > index 1f1bb36..abdb0ef 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c > @@ -381,8 +381,11 @@ int spi_flash_cmd_read_ops(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 offset, > } > > cmdsz = SPI_FLASH_CMD_LEN + flash->dummy_byte; > - cmd = malloc(cmdsz); > - memset(cmd, 0, cmdsz); > + cmd = calloc(1, cmdsz); > + if (!cmd) { > + debug("SF: Failed to allocate cmd\n"); > + return ret; Shouldn't you return -ENOMEM instead? Regards, Fabio Estevam
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki > <jagannadha.sutradharudu-teki@xilinx.com> wrote: >> Squash the malloc()+memset() combo in favor of calloc(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com> >> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c >> index 1f1bb36..abdb0ef 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c >> @@ -381,8 +381,11 @@ int spi_flash_cmd_read_ops(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 offset, >> } >> >> cmdsz = SPI_FLASH_CMD_LEN + flash->dummy_byte; >> - cmd = malloc(cmdsz); >> - memset(cmd, 0, cmdsz); >> + cmd = calloc(1, cmdsz); >> + if (!cmd) { >> + debug("SF: Failed to allocate cmd\n"); >> + return ret; > > Shouldn't you return -ENOMEM instead? Yes - we can but anyway ret is -1 by default. and sf code doesn't use -ve macros' as of now.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote: >> Shouldn't you return -ENOMEM instead? > > Yes - we can but anyway ret is -1 by default. > and sf code doesn't use -ve macros' as of now. -1 is not an propriate return error value in this case. Regards, Fabio Estevam
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Shouldn't you return -ENOMEM instead? >> >> Yes - we can but anyway ret is -1 by default. >> and sf code doesn't use -ve macros' as of now. > > -1 is not an propriate return error value in this case. Yes it should be -11 - then we need to use -ENOMEM
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c index 1f1bb36..abdb0ef 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c @@ -381,8 +381,11 @@ int spi_flash_cmd_read_ops(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 offset, } cmdsz = SPI_FLASH_CMD_LEN + flash->dummy_byte; - cmd = malloc(cmdsz); - memset(cmd, 0, cmdsz); + cmd = calloc(1, cmdsz); + if (!cmd) { + debug("SF: Failed to allocate cmd\n"); + return ret; + } cmd[0] = flash->read_cmd; while (len) {
Squash the malloc()+memset() combo in favor of calloc(). Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> --- drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)