> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c > > index f71235c6a338..f4f82aecc05d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c > > @@ -713,8 +713,8 @@ static s32 __load_upcase_table(struct super_block *sb, sector_t sector, > > > > u32 checksum = 0; > > > > - upcase_table = p_fs->vol_utbl = kmalloc(UTBL_COL_COUNT * sizeof(u16 *), > > - GFP_KERNEL); > > + upcase_table = kmalloc_array(UTBL_COL_COUNT, sizeof(u16 *), GFP_KERNEL); > > + p_fs->vol_utbl = upcase_table; > > This patch is fine, but one idea for future patches is that you could > remove the "upcase_table" variable and use "p_fs->vol_utbl" everywhere > instead. Thanks for the suggestion. This is my first contribution and I tried to introduce the minimum number of changes necessary to fix the issues reported by checkpatch.pl. Also, I'm still immersed in getting familiar with the contribution process and the code. Do you think it makes sense to include this change in a future patch series along with other refactoring? Or, should I modify this patch? By the way, upcase_table is sometimes accessed in quite complex ways. For instance: upcase_table[col_index][get_row_index(index)] = uni; Where having an intermediate variable instead of using the struct field directly seems to improve readability a bit. Otherwise: p_fs->vol_utbl[col_index][get_row_index(index)] = uni; I assume, in cases like this, from a coding style perspective, the following approach is preferred: row_index = get_row_index(index); p_fs->vol_utbl[col_index][row_index] = uni; Is that correct? Regards, Roi Martin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
