lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3] gpio: Remove VLA from gpiolib
From
Date
On 03/30/2018 07:33 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The new challenge is to remove VLAs from the kernel
>> (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621) to eventually
>> turn on -Wvla.
>>
>> Using a kmalloc array is the easy way to fix this but kmalloc is still
>> more expensive than stack allocation. Introduce a fast path with a
>> fixed size stack array to cover most chip with gpios below some fixed
>> amount. The slow path dynamically allocates an array to cover those
>> chips with a large number of gpios.
>
>> + ret = gpiod_set_array_value_complex(false,
>> true,
>> lh->numdescs,
>> lh->descs,
>> vals);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> return 0;
>
> Can't we
>
> return gpiod_set_array_value_complex(); ?
>
>

Yeah I'll clean that up for v4.

>> + slowpath = kcalloc(2 * BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio),
>> + sizeof(*slowpath),
>> + can_sleep ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_ATOMIC);
>
>
>> + if (slowpath)
>> + kfree(slowpath);
>
>> + if (slowpath)
>> + kfree(slowpath);
>
> Since slowpath is a pointer, conditionals above are redundant.
>
>> + slowpath = kcalloc(2 * BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio),
>> + sizeof(*slowpath),
>> + can_sleep ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_ATOMIC);
>
>> + if (slowpath)
>> + kfree(slowpath);
>
> Ditto.
>

This was caught by a coccinelle script via 0-day but I think the request
was to not do it. I'll add a comment explaining why we are going against
style.

Thanks,
Laura

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 20:32    [W:0.064 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site