> On 21. Mar 2022, at 10:26, hfreude <hfreude@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-19 21:35, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>> While the original code is valid, it is not the obvious choice for the
>> sizeof() call and in preparation to limit the scope of the list iterator
>> variable the sizeof should be changed to the size of the variable
>> being allocated.
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
>> b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
>> index 3e259befd30a..fcbd537530e8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev,
>> list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
>> maxzqs++;
>> if (maxzqs > 0)
>> - zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs + 1, sizeof(zq), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs + 1, sizeof(*zq_uelist), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
>> if (zcrypt_queue_force_online(zq, online))
>> if (zq_uelist) {
>> base-commit: 34e047aa16c0123bbae8e2f6df33e5ecc1f56601
>> --
>> 2.25.1
> Thanks Jakob, add my Reviewed-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Which way is this patch going to be integrated into the kernel ?
> Usually I pick this and push it into s390 and on the next merge window it will
> get merged into Linus Torvalds kernel tree.
> However, sounds like you are about to clean up the kernel in preparation for the
> changes related to the double linked list api. So maybe you have a patch series
> which will go into the kernel by another way ?
> Waiting for an answer, Thanks
>
CC'd Greg KH (in case he has some input) but my assumption is that this just goes
the normal way through your s390 tree. Most of this cleanup is not in a hurry so
getting it into the next merge window should be fine.
Jakob
