linux-kernel - Re: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56992D46.8070102@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:32:54 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table()
 after error detection

>>> 	local_rqfpr = kmalloc_array(2 * (MAX_FILER_IDX + 1),
>>> 				    sizeof(unsigned int), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> 	if (!local_rqfpr)
>>> 		goto err;
>>>
>>> 	local_rqfcr = &local_rqfpr[MAX_FILER_IDX + 1];
>>
>> Do you suggest to use only one array (instead of two as before) here?
> 
> That's a possibility.

Thanks for your clarification.


> If, as your title suggests, you really want fewer function calls,

I am unsure at the moment if more changes will make sense in
this function implementation.


> (which as far as I saw, you didn't do)

Is my wording "after error detection" insufficient eventually?


> that could be a mechanism to remove both an allocation and a free.

Would any more software developers or source code reviewers like
to share their opinions in such a direction?

Regards,
Markus