Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] staging: exfat: replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array

[Roi Martin <jroi.martin@gmail.com>]

> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c
> > index f71235c6a338..f4f82aecc05d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c
> > @@ -713,8 +713,8 @@ static s32 __load_upcase_table(struct super_block *sb, sector_t sector,
> >  
> >  	u32 checksum = 0;
> >  
> > -	upcase_table = p_fs->vol_utbl = kmalloc(UTBL_COL_COUNT * sizeof(u16 *),
> > -						GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	upcase_table = kmalloc_array(UTBL_COL_COUNT, sizeof(u16 *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	p_fs->vol_utbl = upcase_table;
> 
> This patch is fine, but one idea for future patches is that you could
> remove the "upcase_table" variable and use "p_fs->vol_utbl" everywhere
> instead.

Thanks for the suggestion.

This is my first contribution and I tried to introduce the minimum
number of changes necessary to fix the issues reported by checkpatch.pl.
Also, I'm still immersed in getting familiar with the contribution
process and the code.

Do you think it makes sense to include this change in a future patch
series along with other refactoring? Or, should I modify this patch?

By the way, upcase_table is sometimes accessed in quite complex ways.
For instance:

	upcase_table[col_index][get_row_index(index)] = uni;

Where having an intermediate variable instead of using the struct field
directly seems to improve readability a bit. Otherwise:

	p_fs->vol_utbl[col_index][get_row_index(index)] = uni;

I assume, in cases like this, from a coding style perspective, the
following approach is preferred:

	row_index = get_row_index(index);
	p_fs->vol_utbl[col_index][row_index] = uni;

Is that correct?

Regards,

	Roi Martin
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel