[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48f16559-6891-9401-dd8e-762c7573304c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2022 23:11:32 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Arend van Spriel <aspriel@...il.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@...ineon.com>,
Wright Feng <wright.feng@...ineon.com>,
Chung-hsien Hsu <chung-hsien.hsu@...ineon.com>
Cc: Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
Mark Kettenis <kettenis@...nbsd.org>,
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
"Daniel (Deognyoun) Kim" <dekim@...adcom.com>,
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@...stytoothpaste.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@...ineon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/34] brcmfmac: firmware: Support having multiple alt
paths
02.01.2022 17:18, Hector Martin пишет:
> On 2022/01/02 15:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 26.12.2021 18:35, Hector Martin пишет:
>>> -static char *brcm_alt_fw_path(const char *path, const char *board_type)
>>> +static const char **brcm_alt_fw_paths(const char *path, const char *board_type)
>>> {
>>> char alt_path[BRCMF_FW_NAME_LEN];
>>> + char **alt_paths;
>>> char suffix[5];
>>>
>>> strscpy(alt_path, path, BRCMF_FW_NAME_LEN);
>>> @@ -609,27 +612,46 @@ static char *brcm_alt_fw_path(const char *path, const char *board_type)
>>> strlcat(alt_path, board_type, BRCMF_FW_NAME_LEN);
>>> strlcat(alt_path, suffix, BRCMF_FW_NAME_LEN);
>>>
>>> - return kstrdup(alt_path, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + alt_paths = kzalloc(sizeof(char *) * 2, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> array_size()?
>
> Of what array?
array_size(sizeof(*alt_paths), 2)
>>> + alt_paths[0] = kstrdup(alt_path, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +
>>> + return (const char **)alt_paths;
>>
>> Why this casting is needed?
>
> Because implicit conversion from char ** to const char ** is not legal
> in C, as that could cause const unsoundness if you do this:
>
> char *foo[1];
> const char **bar = foo;
>
> bar[0] = "constant string";
> foo[0][0] = '!'; // clobbers constant string
It's up to a programmer to decide what is right to do. C gives you
flexibility, meanwhile it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot if you
won't be careful.
> But it's fine in this case since the non-const pointer disappears so
> nothing can ever write through it again.
>
There is indeed no need for the castings in such cases, it's a typical
code pattern in kernel. You would need to do the casting for the other
way around, i.e. if char ** was returned and **alt_paths was a const.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists