On 10/17/23 00:51, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 10/16/2023 2:23 PM, Alexis Lothoré wrote: >> Hello Jeff, >> >> On 10/16/23 17:26, Jeff Johnson wrote: >>> On 10/16/2023 1:29 AM, Alexis Lothoré wrote: >>> this is probably OK since the values are constant, but kcalloc() is generally >>> preferred >> >> Ok, I can submit a new version with kcalloc. One thing that I do not understand >> however is why checkpatch.pl remains silent on this one. I guess it should raise >> the ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY warning here. I tried to dive into the script to >> understand why, but I drowned in regexes (and Perl, with which I am not familiar >> with). Could it be because of both sides being constant ? > > I also drown when looking at checkpatch.pl -- so many "write-only" regexes! But > I think the following is what excludes your patch: > $r1 =~ /^[A-Z_][A-Z0-9_]*$ > > It is a compile-time constant so the compiler can flag on overflow, so it's your > call to modify or not. Thanks for taking a look. I have tried to tweak those lines to see if it makes checkpatch raise the warning, without success. Anyway, I agree with your initial statement, let's keep the code base homogeneous and replace kzalloc with kcalloc > /jeff -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
