Hi Jann, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:32:24 +0200: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:30 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva > <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:10:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva > > > <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having > > > > a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code > > > > should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older > > > > style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. > > > > > > But this is not such a case, right? Isn't this a true fixed-size > > > array? It sounds like you're just changing it because it > > > pattern-matched on "array of length 1 at the end of a struct". > > > > Yeah; I should have changed that 'dynamically' part of the text above > > a bit. However, as I commented in the text below, in the case that more > > CS IDs are needed (let's wait for the maintainers to comment on this...) > > in the future, this change makes the code more maintainable, as for > > the allocation part, the developer would only have to update the CS_N > > macro to the number of CS IDs that are needed. > > But in that case, shouldn't you change it to "int cs[CS_N]" and get > rid of the struct_size() stuff? I do agree with Jann, I think it's best to consider this a fixed-size array for now. If we ever want to extend the number of supported CS, there is much more rework involved anyway. Thanks, Miquèl
