On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 00:45 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 4/12/21 23:52, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > Silencing analyzer warnings shouldn't be done at the expense of > > human > > readers. If it is imperative to switch to flex_array_size() to > > quiesce > > checker warnings, please add a comment in the code explaining that > > the > > size evaluates to nseg_new-1 sge_ieee1212 structs. > > Done: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210413054032.GA276102@embeddedor/ I think the reason everyone gets confused is that they think the first argument should do something. If flex_array_size had been defined #define flex_array_size(p, count) \ array_size(count, \ sizeof(*(p)) + __must_be_array(p)) Then we could have used flex_array_size(sge, nseg_new - 1) or flex_array_size(rio->sge, nseg_new - 1) and everyone would have understood either expression. This would also have been useful, as the first example demonstrates, when we have a pointer rather than a flexible member ... although that means the macro likely needs a new name. However, perhaps just do array_size(nseg_new - 1, sizeof(*sge)); And lose the comment? James
