On 7/25/2024 2:17 AM, flyingpenghao@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > kmalloc_array_node() is a NUMA-aware version of kmalloc_array that > has overflow checking and can be used as a replacement for kmalloc_node. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/tid_rdma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/tid_rdma.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/tid_rdma.c > index c465966a1d9c..6b1921f6280b 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/tid_rdma.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/tid_rdma.c > @@ -1636,7 +1636,7 @@ static int hfi1_kern_exp_rcv_alloc_flows(struct tid_rdma_request *req, > > if (likely(req->flows)) > return 0; > - flows = kmalloc_node(MAX_FLOWS * sizeof(*flows), gfp, > + flows = kmalloc_array_node(MAX_FLOWS, sizeof(*flows), gfp, > req->rcd->numa_id); > if (!flows) > return -ENOMEM; This is clearly not going to overflow. I see no reason to change it. However, I don't know the current policy on such replacements. -Dean External recipient
