Hi Tomas, Please, see my comments below...
On 7/22/20 14:04, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> Friendly ping: who can take this? :) >> >> Thanks >> -- >> Gustavo >> >> On 7/14/20 16:45, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element >>> arrays with a simple value type u8 reserved, once this is just a >>> placeholder for alignment. >>> >>> Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. >>> The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts >>> readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable >>> type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is >> not. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> Changes in v2: >>> - Use a more concise changelog text. >>> >>> drivers/misc/mei/hbm.c | 4 ++-- >>> drivers/misc/mei/hw.h | 6 +++--- >>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/hbm.c b/drivers/misc/mei/hbm.c index >>> a44094cdbc36..f020d5594154 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/misc/mei/hbm.c >>> +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/hbm.c >>> @@ -408,14 +408,14 @@ static int mei_hbm_add_cl_resp(struct mei_device >>> *dev, u8 addr, u8 status) { >>> struct mei_msg_hdr mei_hdr; >>> struct hbm_add_client_response resp; >>> - const size_t len = sizeof(struct hbm_add_client_response); >>> + const size_t len = sizeof(resp); >>> int ret; >>> >>> dev_dbg(dev->dev, "adding client response\n"); >>> >>> mei_hbm_hdr(&mei_hdr, len); >>> >>> - memset(&resp, 0, sizeof(struct hbm_add_client_response)); >>> + memset(&resp, 0, len); >>> resp.hbm_cmd = MEI_HBM_ADD_CLIENT_RES_CMD; >>> resp.me_addr = addr; >>> resp.status = status; > > This should be probably in a different patch it's not related to the second > part. > >>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/hw.h b/drivers/misc/mei/hw.h index >>> b1a8d5ec88b3..8c0297f0e7f3 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/misc/mei/hw.h >>> +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/hw.h > I have second thoughts of this part as all reserved fields in this file are > of form u8 reserved[X], > so we will lose that uniformity with this change, you have to look at the > file as whole > not just at the patch. So I prefer we drop that part of the patch. > This is actually the main point of this patch: the removal of one-element arrays. And yeah, every place in the kernel that uses the form that you mention will see it's uniformity slightly modified, and that's for a good cause: the removal of one-element arrays, so we can enable bounds checking. Thanks -- Gustavo >>> @@ -346,13 +346,13 @@ struct hbm_add_client_request { >>> * @hbm_cmd: bus message command header >>> * @me_addr: address of the client in ME >>> * @status: if HBMS_SUCCESS then the client can now accept connections. >>> - * @reserved: reserved >>> + * @reserved: reserved for alignment. >>> */ >>> struct hbm_add_client_response { >>> u8 hbm_cmd; >>> u8 me_addr; >>> u8 status; >>> - u8 reserved[1]; >>> + u8 reserved; >>> } __packed; >>> >>> /** >>> @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ struct hbm_notification { >>> u8 hbm_cmd; >>> u8 me_addr; >>> u8 host_addr; >>> - u8 reserved[1]; >>> + u8 reserved; >>> } __packed; >>> >>> /** >>>
