linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] extcon: Use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type)

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: <68d4f415-fd7f-dd12-7b14-c81842aa1f19@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:33:44 +0900
From:   Chanwoo Choi <cwchoi00@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Bumwoo Lee <bw365.lee@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] extcon: Use sizeof(*pointer) instead of
 sizeof(type)

On 23. 4. 6. 00:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> It is preferred to use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type).
> The type of the variable can change and one needs not change
> the former (unlike the latter). No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: Bumwoo Lee <bw365.lee@...sung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/extcon/extcon.c | 15 ++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon.c
> index daaded92cf80..50c5fd454488 100644
> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon.c
> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon.c
> @@ -1098,8 +1098,7 @@ static int extcon_alloc_cables(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>  	if (!edev->max_supported)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	edev->cables = kcalloc(edev->max_supported,
> -			       sizeof(struct extcon_cable),
> +	edev->cables = kcalloc(edev->max_supported, sizeof(*edev->cables),
>  			       GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!edev->cables)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -1161,14 +1160,12 @@ static int extcon_alloc_muex(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>  	for (index = 0; edev->mutually_exclusive[index]; index++)
>  		;
>  
> -	edev->attrs_muex = kcalloc(index + 1,
> -				   sizeof(struct attribute *),
> +	edev->attrs_muex = kcalloc(index + 1, sizeof(*edev->attrs_muex),
>  				   GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!edev->attrs_muex)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	edev->d_attrs_muex = kcalloc(index,
> -				     sizeof(struct device_attribute),
> +	edev->d_attrs_muex = kcalloc(index, sizeof(*edev->d_attrs_muex),
>  				     GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!edev->d_attrs_muex) {
>  		kfree(edev->attrs_muex);
> @@ -1214,8 +1211,8 @@ static int extcon_alloc_groups(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	edev->extcon_dev_type.groups = kcalloc(edev->max_supported + 2,
> -			sizeof(struct attribute_group *),
> -			GFP_KERNEL);
> +					  sizeof(*edev->extcon_dev_type.groups),
> +					  GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!edev->extcon_dev_type.groups)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -1293,7 +1290,7 @@ int extcon_dev_register(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>  	spin_lock_init(&edev->lock);
>  	if (edev->max_supported) {
>  		edev->nh = kcalloc(edev->max_supported, sizeof(*edev->nh),
> -				GFP_KERNEL);
> +				   GFP_KERNEL);

Looks good to me. 

But, actually, this line change is not related to role of this patch.
If possible, we have to keep the only one role on one patch. Don't touch it.

-- 
Best Regards,
Samsung Electronics
Chanwoo Choi