[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4Ro+Ex+E1WemSrs@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 08:53:28 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gustavoars@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Replace zero-length arrays with
DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:15:43PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 08:08:15PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:03:21PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:50:55PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:54:49PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 03:48:45PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct hfa384x_pdr_refdac_measurements {
> > > > > > - u16 value[0];
> > > > > > + DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(u16, value);
> > > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? This structure is never used anywhere, right? So why is this
> > > > > needed to be changed and not just removed entirely? Same for the other
> > > > > structures in this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Hello Greg,
> > > > I am unable to confirm that these structures are truly not needed in the absence
> > > > if a real device based testing. I could only validate that using the compile
> > > > build and driver loading.
> > >
> > > Think this through, if no one is actually using this structure, and it
> > > is of 0 size, then do you think it is being used?
> >
> > Hello Greg,
> > I did not find any memory allocation for these zero length array structures.
> > Also, the union or its enclosing structure do not appear to access the members.
> > Hence I am leaning towards concluding that these zero length array structures do
> > not appear to be necessary.
> >
> > There are a few other structures that are part of the same union, however, they
> > too do not appear to be used for accessing the memory assigned to the union [or
> > its enclosing structure]. I think most of the members of these unions can be
> > replaced by one max size structure of this union [e.g. struct
> > hfa384x_pdr_mkk_measurements].
> >
> > Could you please comment if I am reading the code right?
> >
> > For your quick reference, the zero length structure declaration are online 963
> > whereas the union is on line number 1080 of the file drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
>
> Hello Greg,
> can you please suggest how should I approach this clean-up/correction?
Sorry, but I do not have the bandwidth to help out with this. I will
gladly review changes submitted only.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists