Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1483471 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-14 18:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-14 19:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: perf/x86: Use kmalloc_array() in merge_attr() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-09-14 18:50 +0200
Re: perf/x86: Use kmalloc_array() in merge_attr() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-14 19:10 +0200
Re: perf/x86: Use kmalloc_array() in merge_attr() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-09-14 19:50 +0200
| From | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: perf/x86: Use kmalloc_array() in merge_attr() |
| Message-ID | <shlxL-3gE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
>> * A multiplication for the size determination of a memory allocation >> indicated that an array data structure should be processed. >> Thus use the corresponding function "kmalloc_array". >> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. >> >> * Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference >> to make the corresponding size determination a bit safer according to >> the Linux coding style convention. > > Why!? How do you think about an information like the following from the well-known script "checkpatch.pl"? WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply Would you like to suggest any more constraints for this kind of software refactoring? Regards, Markus
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shlR7-3Ce-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1483471 |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:40:32PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Would you like to suggest any more constraints for this kind of > software refactoring? Yes, don't do it. If you're writing new code by all means, do whatever you feel, but don't go changing code just because checkpatch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shmtP-3OB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1483488 |
>> Would you like to suggest any more constraints for this kind of >> software refactoring? > > Yes, don't do it. I am bit surprised by this feedback. > If you're writing new code by all means, do whatever you feel, Could you accept related software updates then? > but don't go changing code just because checkpatch. Why is this not a valid reason for you? How useful can properties that are provided by a function like kmalloc_array() be also for software modules which you care about? Do you find any other software improvements more worthwhile? Regards, Markus
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web