linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] firmware: stratix10-svc: Slightly simplify code

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]

Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 09:18:43 -0500
From:   Richard Gong <richard.gong@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, atull@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] firmware: stratix10-svc: Slightly simplify code

Hi,

On 5/2/20 3:49 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 01/05/2020 à 18:55, Richard Gong a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 5/1/20 10:48 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>> Le 01/05/2020 à 17:40, Richard Gong a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 4/29/20 1:52 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>>>> Replace 'devm_kmalloc_array(... | __GFP_ZERO)' with the equivalent and
>>>>> shorter 'devm_kcalloc(...)'.
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make much sense.
>>>> Actually devm_kcalloc returns devm_kmalloc_array(.., flag | 
>>>> __GFP_ZERO).
>>>>
>>> The only goal is to have a sightly less verbose code.
>>> This saves one line of code and there is no need to wonder why we 
>>> explicitly pass __GFP_ZERO to kmalloc_array.
>>>
>>> Mostly a matter of taste.
>> I prefer this part remain unchanged.
>>
> 
> The easiest would be just to ignore this patch entirely
Yes, please.
  but if you need
> a v3 for the series, could you tell me if you have any comments on the 3 
> other patches?
> 
I added some comments in your patch #3, also recommend putting all 
changes in one patch.

Regards,
Richard

> CJ
> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Richard
>>
>>>
>>> 'devm_kcalloc' is inlined, so the binary should be exactly the same. >
>>> CJ
>>>
>>>>> 'ctrl->genpool' can not be NULL, so axe a useless test in the remove
>>>>> function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c | 6 ++----
>>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c 
>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
>>>>> index 739004398877..c228337cb0a1 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
>>>>> @@ -1002,8 +1002,7 @@ static int stratix10_svc_drv_probe(struct 
>>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>       if (!controller)
>>>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>   -    chans = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, SVC_NUM_CHANNEL,
>>>>> -                   sizeof(*chans), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
>>>>> +    chans = devm_kcalloc(dev, SVC_NUM_CHANNEL, sizeof(*chans), 
>>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>       if (!chans)
>>>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>   @@ -1086,8 +1085,7 @@ static int stratix10_svc_drv_remove(struct 
>>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>           kthread_stop(ctrl->task);
>>>>>           ctrl->task = NULL;
>>>>>       }
>>>>> -    if (ctrl->genpool)
>>>>> -        gen_pool_destroy(ctrl->genpool);
>>>>> +    gen_pool_destroy(ctrl->genpool);
>>>>>       list_del(&ctrl->node);
>>>>>         return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>
>>
>