On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 08:23:49AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 21:51 +0800, Zheng Yongjun wrote: > > Use kzalloc rather than kcalloc(1,...) > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > What's the reason for wanting to do this transformation? > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1- > > cmd.c > > index ca7158fa6e6c..4d8415e3b778 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c > > @@ -794,7 +794,7 @@ int tpm1_pm_suspend(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 > > tpm_suspend_pcr) > > */ > > int tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > { > > - chip->allocated_banks = kcalloc(1, sizeof(*chip- > > >allocated_banks), > > + chip->allocated_banks = kzalloc(sizeof(*chip->allocated_banks), > > GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!chip->allocated_banks) > > return -ENOMEM; > > The reason tpm1 has this is because it mirrors the allocation in tpm2 > so we retain code consistency. It's a fairly minor advantage, so it > could be changed if you have a better rationale ... but what is it?
Yup, I neither understand this. > James /Jarkko
