On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:36 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:32:45AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I think expanding the number of allocation functions > > > > is not necessary. > > > > > > I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected > > > allocation functions makes sense. > > > > Function symmetry matters too. > > > > These allocation functions are specific to kvz<foo> > > and are not symmetric for k<foo>, v<foo>, devm_<foo> > > <foo>_node, and the like. > > If somebody wants them, then we can add them. Yeah, but I don't think any of it is necessary. How many of these struct+bufsize * count entries actually exist? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
