From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BE5321A459 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 06:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761288595; cv=none; b=Z9bNFZ6sA2eZv0pK7kkuKn6CrrPf123t78ni5WXLiXOz864PfhDfVBLK4475lxy9jFgRv/rnsNNkPA2+iUohHaVOzf8EgcHFz5e3SarWkufV3UHwCDnwfKAy2kEhcfX0YGSF3dTqe89jJgm+BCu2TaNcuAHN/FF2+ZjXTmrQq4I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761288595; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9vBPEojZFqE9ty/6D3pThFauraHYwTpalTAAyZmWy+Y=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Mime-Version; b=HbSqhugovm6vG21GUlcOE8wKL0NJSV58UrI8A+RcIDkW13jXzes0c7txgKB1q97hj/59VSf+I2ngDXsIUS/6LCxBI2VKDiG8GctiqCumIfuLVwnObZMx5OnxEre22o/WVk4Syfrps9X3UTmQULAFnD0YSPUaaXCBmeM637nRBuw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=aocwFo2i; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aocwFo2i" Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7a226a0798cso1412830b3a.2 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 23:49:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761288592; x=1761893392; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=km/6k02PixTAqdwRObjjj37gw0zTjmxCVFm4PbnN0vM=; b=aocwFo2iwyQXzunpY3YY/LglR7A2L0TtoJ5iM61FQIOag2L6AdCQc0vK79Rc9lqR4c rc9TdIJoaE8Vb9eRz7VVuDlOx8h+WUus/hn7Q0iIKZzhdeiFdeg3p/AQRH18J7O+7HrU IrhYkve2wN6hzVC010WA3LshH62aimVsHhK/e1Wt/y//BlR6v9yEmbK9AV0UuuFlSrCN 1KAFXQ+IRhdodxZZ4uyGiMeaK7Kr9mYwU5iYEgIlb5tmFC1RjBSZbWvbFi8sSuvfPuzP +kqGwVHOWHK1pmLFivSqy0fRx7lOFkqAucRfh5RPMsDQ+SS4QWv7AsFedDdXMrOBaTqv eMnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761288592; x=1761893392; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=km/6k02PixTAqdwRObjjj37gw0zTjmxCVFm4PbnN0vM=; b=FdFHo03CDoH21cLqtP4ejSZGEGBPPzDIsTW1W9K/52dE9o/V4YP2Uz4s/SEQ6f06Nv dxMljYn9KllBitferft8CkykpWL4RCbxrAeUQCEop3kwcHcTMwAvxgeBGycivl6chr2o 9etkyKzHqPpd+HNBKtjtZAv+6B7kPqd076/LEbTKnQgXnjuXHk/YnNH6P+2xElBdr0Q5 A3/yQV38Lj5/BYl6b7ALs88NTQqoprDx2UHtAKETpYu3HB4Q8fj57wUvKbfVurUcgYUT uzOxbptDpt6URCurMoazg1DhRk7eLaoyWJNeTFqIAblUXXW5DvAqRfG2bDO4Ls9JTfrc 5aCg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX/Gl/seSLjMJRtPo7Vmnc8kelckif8Rj9pYPcT0+jVr36sQsvzjZfuJ+oXUDU1j7XerbS32gEymcaxeJs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzYlgnXsBTeEfrVzpHsQfNQuEjXZOPeaIBle3oE5D0c6fZg0SYx pp6uhwAHuFI+AhxkgRIfiM04HBTwW/8+aarDc6YAqA5utWsVXEWKy8wL X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuEjzymqvFcGseypAcCsZYfwpNM84pSEegv829L/K1KTJW40Ulc/A/8ujCmpfW U6ADNMKtD77dtaYn6ba86Z87HVBXrIoYZrF9p+DdaHBXcU6k5ahA/Wt0+zSzmnwBvTXpcEb0472 9K7JsyMEB4ajADtoDqNqzarJMtxzlMGx9gEzuis+rtoXd8wWmpczkOMH451VYn+QKOeAYbwTj93 7NXulcuhLMBEHiA9pAn7hgMo3/rDvfGpkmUEL9Rf48FIXQGQ3lS5KN2+6g7p2YF42/aPhSFCQaw OLNvXyx6/N1KQyG+KSZC6ioneR3CwrCoF0tDVJrcJYvw93ThOslbnzu4DQC4ppPe6NqJMPixKgN 5HmooqSkINlr2EcpugpnXUcJBooeq05cl2FFkl7G2YiRNuaaadTwTgjvzZy0nLdf+wmlsDOfOtf BRXkRJ/fxJq6ycLmlV80T7h9mbVtMPceU9X7wtdRIO4PA7CNEAcF4A X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHBw2wC0BoP2X02OWCazdHGMebKdJsDNmkJBbtCK1oS/G49+mr3awzE1GU+XQHCYvJEsXB+uA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:4fce:b0:7a2:7d3b:4356 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7a27d3b4449mr4993313b3a.32.1761288591770; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 23:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from li-5d80d4cc-2782-11b2-a85c-bed59fe4c9e5.ibm.com ([49.207.202.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7a274bb3789sm4779374b3a.60.2025.10.23.23.49.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Oct 2025 23:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47bc0211bd8cc5474fbb3edb5446e0e306ccb026.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use kmalloc_array() instead of kmalloc() for map allocation From: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" To: Kriish Sharma , Carlos Maiolino Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, david.hunter.linux@gmail.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 12:19:46 +0530 In-Reply-To: <20251018194528.1871298-1-kriish.sharma2006@gmail.com> References: <20251018194528.1871298-1-kriish.sharma2006@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-27.el8_10) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2025-10-18 at 19:45 +0000, Kriish Sharma wrote: > Using kmalloc_array() better reflects the intent to allocate an array of > map entries, and improves consistency with similar allocations across the > kernel. > > No functional change intended. > > Signed-off-by: Kriish Sharma > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c > index 23ba84ec919a..34ec61e455ff 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c > @@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ xfs_qm_reset_dqcounts_buf( > if (qip->i_nblocks == 0) > return 0; > > - map = kmalloc(XFS_DQITER_MAP_SIZE * sizeof(*map), > + map = kmalloc_array(XFS_DQITER_MAP_SIZE, sizeof(*map), > GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); I think kmalloc_array is more useful when the size of memory to be allocated is dynamic with kmalloc_array doing some additional checks on the size that is being passed. In this case, both XFS_QUITER_MAP_SIZE and sizeof(*map) are constant i.e, we are allocating constant size memory, so maybe this isn't quite necessary? Definition of kmalloc_array() static inline void *kmalloc_array(size_t n, size_t size, gfp_t flags) { if (size != 0 && n > SIZE_MAX / size) return NULL; return kmalloc(n * size, flags); } --NR > > lblkno = 0;