From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5922F5328; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779173234; cv=none; b=ZNuUtBoodXXDryzgq5UPERdDBIrZxJ7+qg8xQfXs+hww1JoIDgksI18oED4A3HYlY8jR92r1y2k3/UM7wqeS5/antau1ehNC1TT2nodhEJwjOw898nV7nrs7OZCPmDTz9UaNrPLhooaXsU4Ys9wyLzFykh4+ARjBR5Mqu/FHYKE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779173234; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vrj6Fko18jAQ9mc/+I4m/8uPi8+EZnj0viMa3oqdY6k=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Bg97qZM0fF25fekMCr1VWiyBm5x2mk2oMEdisNgxM8prUBB94+SChfo/5wPPc0hX0bE/5ZtiiUECKTuDrnilXPzkG7H/ZeDiQRCI1Ikbtb7akbpWlNkJifwg7+SBDvcqna+i5sicUqCXZl6mgG8kfpJ7YKve9FQ8xcMIr0JD/bY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=eumPqLD5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="eumPqLD5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=vrj6Fko18jAQ9mc/+I4m/8uPi8+EZnj0viMa3oqdY6k=; t=1779173232; x=1780382832; b=eumPqLD5Jy/0T1IufBtzjsUunIE3dA7C5QGvd0w0NCsk/pJ qNSC/L+MRlrb/SLByTg8HE0PAUAIz1j/Y7TDJWWv1yTqSNYkXmmycKIDkaKjeFe32Nyxdd1MG9DNr hMz3H2tTT9fU7ysxn63R14cspxDL3BMvipcIBIA07V5iCif7uqQ+daa6pNPDNDsNLdVF5m8/gLVd9 EYWwc+IMQzqZCMUE9fWLGOz7IkF9yj4PKYrXYR/9dnf9T9qeM6lwWD8jYBQ9jTwRTN7Th9q20zxHt ZC/rx2lGdHlfDBlgDLgLDB1wypkSFxLXPK/9K2+J73LxRQT73HmTFeU5MuZ3qfyQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wPEEH-00000005hvB-2kEw; Tue, 19 May 2026 08:47:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1e77da9180ee82bf1b0d122f0ddf137949d4278e.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next] wifi: mwifiex: Use flexible array for RX reorder table From: Johannes Berg To: Rosen Penev , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: Brian Norris , Francesco Dolcini , Kees Cook , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , open list , "open list:KERNEL HARDENING (not covered by other ""areas):Keyword:\\b__counted_by(_le|_be|_ptr)?\\b" Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 08:47:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20260518211826.11245-1-rosenp@gmail.com> References: <20260518211826.11245-1-rosenp@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned Hi Rosen, On Mon, 2026-05-18 at 14:18 -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > Embed the RX reorder pointer array in struct mwifiex_rx_reorder_tbl > instead of allocating it separately. Others might disagree, but personally, I think you should stop doing this. Sure, it *might* (I've been bitten too much by __counted_by) be a border-line improvement, but it's not _really_ all that useful, especially on these older drivers. Did you even test it at all? And then especially > Assisted-by: Codex:GPT-5.5 if you do it this way, you're going to be able to produce such changes with way less effort than anyone can possibly review. And since for all of the fringe drivers the review falls on me personally, well, I'm just not going to keep up. If you _really_ want to help, please help review changes rather than producing more noise. Maybe even take over maintenance of some specific driver that you can test. johannes