Re: [PATCH] ALSA: ctxfi: change dao_set_input functions from kzalloc to kcalloc

> We are trying to get rid of all multiplications from allocation … Please improve such a change description another bit. See also: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.14-rc5#n94 Regards, Markus

Re: [PATCH v3?] sched/topology: replace kzalloc() with kcalloc() in sched_init_numa()

… > We are trying to get rid of all multiplications from allocation > functions to prevent integer overflows[1]. … Is an imperative wording more desirable for such a change description? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches

Re: [PATCH v4?] thermal/debugfs: replace kzalloc() with kcalloc() in thermal_debug_tz_add()

… > We are trying to get rid of all multiplications from allocation > functions to prevent integer overflows[1]. … Is an imperative wording more desirable for such a change description? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches

Re: [PATCH v2?] ASoC: q6dsp: q6apm: replace kzalloc() with kcalloc() in q6apm_map_memory_regions()

… > We are trying to get rid of all multiplications from allocation > functions to prevent integer overflows[1]. … Is an imperative wording more desirable for such a change description? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches

Re: [PATCH v3] thermal/debugfs: change kzalloc to kcalloc

> We are replacing any instances of kzalloc(size * count, ...) with > kcalloc(count, size, ...) due to risk of overflow [1]. * See also: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.13#n94 * Would you like to improve

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/topology: change kzalloc to kcalloc

> We are replacing any instances of kzalloc(size * count, ...) with > kcalloc(count, size, ...) due to risk of overflow [1]. * See also: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.13#n94 * How do you think about to

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: q6dsp: q6apm: change kzalloc to kcalloc

> We are replacing any instances of kzalloc(size * count, ...) with > kcalloc(count, size, ...) due to risk of overflow [1]. See also: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.13#n94 … > +++ b/sound/soc/qcom/qdsp6/q

Re: [cocci] [v3 01/10] coccinelle: Add rules to find str_true_false() replacements

> The semantic patch is quite slow. Actually it tests a large number of > cases, eg where the parentheses are present and where they are not. Can such development concerns trigger any adjustments for further coccicheck configurations and provided SmPL scripts? Regards, Markus

Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] mm/slab: Plumb kmem_buckets into __do_kmalloc_node()

… > functions can then been built without the argument, … be? … > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h … > -void *kmalloc_node_track_caller_noprof(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node, … > +void *__kmalloc_node_track_caller_noprof(DECL_BUCKET_PARAMS(size, b), gfp_t > flags, int node, …

Re: [cocci] [PATCH v2] cocci: Add rules to find str_plural() replacements

> Add rules for finding places where str_plural() can be used. … > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ … > +/// Find places to use string_choices.h's various helpers. > +// > +// Confidence: Medium > +// Options: --no-includes --include-headers > +virtual patch > +v

[PATCH] pstore/ram_core: Improve exception handling in persistent_ram_new()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:57:21 +0100 * Omit an initialisation (for the variable “ret”) which became unnecessary with this refactoring because a memory allocation failure will be directly indicated by a corresponding return statement in an if branch. * Move a call of

Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Return directly after a failed kasprintf() call in ramoops_init_prz()

>> The result from a call of the function “kasprintf” was passed to >> a subsequent function call without checking for a null pointer before >> (according to a memory allocation failure). >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. … >> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c >> @@ -595,6 +595,9 @@

[PATCH] pstore/ram: Return directly after a failed kasprintf() call in ramoops_init_prz()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:09:22 +0100 The result from a call of the function “kasprintf” was passed to a subsequent function call without checking for a null pointer before (according to a memory allocation failure). This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software