On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:38:48PM +0300, Kari Argillander wrote: > Ntfs3 driver contains self made alloc wrappers. Problem with these > wrappers is that we cannot take off example GFP_NOFS flag. It is not > recomended use those in all places. Also if we change one driver > specific wrapper to kernel wrapper then it would look really wierd. > People should be most familiar with kernel wrappers so let's just use > those ones. > > Driver specific alloc wrapper might also confuse some static analyzing > tools, but I do not have real world example. Actually I do. checkpatch.pl will now give following warnings so checkpatch was triggered with self made wrappers. WARNING: Prefer kcalloc over kzalloc with multiply #170: FILE: fs/ntfs3/bitmap.c:686: + wnd->free_bits = kzalloc(wnd->nwnd * sizeof(u16), GFP_NOFS); WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply #179: FILE: fs/ntfs3/bitmap.c:1357: + new_free = kmalloc(new_wnd * sizeof(u16), GFP_NOFS); WARNING: Prefer kcalloc over kzalloc with multiply #284: FILE: fs/ntfs3/frecord.c:2053: + pages = kzalloc(pages_per_frame * sizeof(struct page *), GFP_NOFS); WARNING: Prefer kcalloc over kzalloc with multiply #302: FILE: fs/ntfs3/frecord.c:2136: + pages = kzalloc(pages_per_frame * sizeof(struct page *), GFP_NOFS); WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply #1016: FILE: fs/ntfs3/index.c:684: + offs = kmalloc(sizeof(u16) * nslots, GFP_NOFS); WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply #1025: FILE: fs/ntfs3/index.c:706: + ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(u16) * new_slots, GFP_NOFS); > Following Coccinelle script was used to automate most of this patch: > > virtual patch > > @alloc depends on patch@ > expression x; > expression y; > @@ > ( > - ntfs_malloc(x) > + kmalloc(x, GFP_NOFS) > | > - ntfs_zalloc(x) > + kzalloc(x, GFP_NOFS) > | > - ntfs_vmalloc(x) > + kvmalloc(x, GFP_NOFS) > | > - ntfs_free(x) > + kfree(x) > | > - ntfs_vfree(x) > + kvfree(x) > | > - ntfs_memdup(x, y) > + kmemdup(x, y, GFP_NOFS) > ) > > Signed-off-by: Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Christoph also nack about these so I CC him.
