[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2] ethernet: intel: Replace pci_pool_alloc by pci_pool_zalloc

[Souptick Joarder]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher at intel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 12:58 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Jeff Kirsher
>> <jeffrey.t.kirsher at intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2016-12-02 at 00:34 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
>> > > In e100_alloc_cbs(), pci_pool_alloc() followed by memset will be
>> > > replaced by pci_pool_zalloc()
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Souptick joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Why the change?  Is pci_pool_alloc() being deprecated?  I ask because
>> > this
>> > is a very old driver and changes will cause a huge regression, where
>> > many
>> > of the parts/NICs may not be available to test with.
>>
>> pci_pool_alloc is not deprecated. As pci_pool_zalloc can do the same as
>> pci_pool_alloc/memset, hence this change.
>>
>> Do we need to go through complete regression to validate this patch?
>
> Well, I do not think it is good idea to make changes and not test them,
> even the "simple" patches need to be tested and verified.
>
> Since pci_pool_zalloc() does the same thing as pci_pool_alloc/memset, then
> what is the benefit of the change?  If there is no benefit and just causes
> a bunch of regression testing, then I am not seeing the gain.
>
> Currently e100 and e1000 drivers are in bug fix only mode (and have been so
> for some time now) so if you looking to kick the dust off these older
> drivers for no real good reason other than you see a possible optimization,
> which you are not wanting to regression test to verify there are no issues.
>  Then I am not going to take your requested change seriously.

Well , I mean, rather than running entire regression whether we can run minimum
set of test cases to verify it :)

>
> Since we are not actively working on the driver, it makes even more sense
> that we should thoroughly test any changes to ensure there are no issues.

Ok, I understand it's really painful to run entire regression test for
this small
optimization change. I will drop this patch.