Re: [PATCH] iio: common: scmi_iio: use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()

[Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>]

在 2025/8/19 18:13, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> [You don't often get email from andy.shevchenko@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 1:08 PM Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com> wrote:
>> 在 2025/8/19 17:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 11:56 AM Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>>> While this change is correct...
>>>>           sensor->freq_avail =
>>>> -               devm_kzalloc(&iio_dev->dev,
>>>> -                            sizeof(*sensor->freq_avail) *
>>>> -                                    (sensor->sensor_info->intervals.count * 2),
>>>> +               devm_kcalloc(&iio_dev->dev,
>>>> +                            sensor->sensor_info->intervals.count * 2,
>>> ...I would also switch this to use array_size() instead of explicit
>>> multiplication as it will check for boundaries that are not static in
>>> this case.
>> I don't understand what "will check for boundaries that are not static in
>> this case" means. Could you explain it to me?
> intervals.count may be anything and of any type. Compiler may or may
> not proof that it holds the value less than size_t / 2 (which may be
> == int / 2 on 32-bit platforms). That's why it's better to use
> array_size(intervals.count, 2),
Sorry, I just understood your reply, I will send v2 immediately.  :)
>
>> I've experimented with the following command and found that kmalloc_array()
>> generates fewer instructions than kmalloc(array_size()):
>> objdump -dSl --prefix-addresses <changed module>.o
> It's about the second parameter in devm_kcalloc(), and of course it
> may generate less instructions but it's irrelevant to my comment.
>
>
Best regards,
Qianfeng