>> * Multiplications for the size determination of memory allocations >> indicated that array data structures should be processed. >> Thus use the corresponding function "kmalloc_array". > > Was the current code incorrect? I suggest to use a safer interface for array allocations. > What makes kmalloc_array() better? 1. How do you think about the safety checks that this function provides? 2. Will you be also affected by further software evolution here? 2016-07-26 mm: faster kmalloc_array(), kcalloc() https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=91c6a05f72a996bee5133e76374ab3ad7d3b9b72 > I'm not going to change code just because some checker suggests to do so. The script "checkpatch.pl" can point information out like the following. WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > So? And which coccinelle script was actually used? How do you think about to look into related information sources? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/81 Would you like to experiment any further with an excerpt? @replacement1@ expression count, target; type T; @@ target = - kmalloc(sizeof(T) * (count) + kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(T) , ...); @replacement2@ expression count, pointer, target; @@ target = - kmalloc(sizeof(*pointer) * (count) + kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*pointer) , ...); > I couldn't spot a coccinelle script doing that in the current tree. This is true for such a software update opportunity. >> * Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference >> to make the corresponding size determination a bit safer according to >> the Linux coding style convention. > > I'm not happy with you mixing this with the above, less trivial, change. I find that it is a useful combination. - A parameter is adjusted together with a special function name. >> - drv->cs = kmalloc(minors * sizeof *drv->cs, GFP_KERNEL); >> + drv->cs = kmalloc_array(minors, sizeof(*drv->cs), GFP_KERNEL); > > For "minors" the same holds as for "channels", above. > > And you snuck in a parentheses change. That should have probably been > merged with 5/5. Would you prefer to add them in another update step? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
