On 10/31/2025 3:14 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
…>> +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c
@@ -464,9 +464,7 @@ static int hv_crash_setup_trampdata(u64 trampoline_va)
return -1;
}
- dest = (void *)trampoline_va;
- memcpy(dest, &hv_crash_asm32, size);
-
+ dest = memcpy((void *)trampoline_va, &hv_crash_asm32, size);
dest += size;
dest = (void *)round_up((ulong)dest, 16);
tramp = (struct hv_crash_tramp_data *)dest;
I tried running spatch Coccinelle checks on this file, but could not get it to
flag this improvement.
The proposed source code transformation is not supported by a coccicheck script
so far.
Do you mind sharing more details on the issue reproduction please.
Would you like to take another look at corresponding development discussions?
Example:
[RFC] Increasing usage of direct pointer assignments from memcpy() calls with
SmPL?
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/[email protected]/
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2025-10/msg00049.html
I am OK with this change,
Thanks for a bit of positive feedback.
though it may cost code readability a little bit.
Would you complain about other variable assignments in such a direction?
Regards,
Markus
The only thing which concerns readability IMO is that it is based on the
assumption that the person reading the code is aware of the return value
of memcpy. Now, it is debatable if that is something which can be
considered trivial. I don't have a strong opinion there, but would
prefer it in its current form.
Also, we could have optimized it further by writing it as below, but we
are not doing that for a reason as we want to keep the code simpler to
read and understand. The same may apply here as well.
dest = memcpy((void *)trampoline_va, &hv_crash_asm32, size) + size;
Regards,
Naman
