On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 9:31 AM Ilpo Järvinen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Rosen Penev wrote:
>
> > Simplifies allocations slightly.
> >
> > Add __counted_by for extra runtime analysis.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c | 9 ++-------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> > b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> > index 05727169f49c..2fd27e80bc1f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> > @@ -57,9 +57,9 @@ struct tpmi_plr_die {
> >
> > struct tpmi_plr {
> > struct dentry *dbgfs_dir;
> > - struct tpmi_plr_die *die_info;
> > int num_dies;
> > struct auxiliary_device *auxdev;
> > + struct tpmi_plr_die die_info[] __counted_by(num_dies);
> > };
> >
> > static const char * const plr_coarse_reasons[] = {
> > @@ -278,15 +278,10 @@ static int intel_plr_probe(struct auxiliary_device
> > *auxdev, const struct auxilia
> > if (!num_resources)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - plr = devm_kzalloc(&auxdev->dev, sizeof(*plr), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + plr = devm_kzalloc(&auxdev->dev, struct_size(plr, die_info,
> > num_resources), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Is there some particular reason why we don't have devm_kzalloc_flex()
> other than that nobody has yet bothered to added one.
I'm not up to date with the hardening people. Anyway when it does,
this will get transformed by a treewide patch.
>
> One of the most annoying thing with the various alloc APIs is that devm_*
> variants seem to never keep up with them. It would be nice if there would
> be some generic solution that when somebody decides a new alloc api func,
> the corresponding devm counterpart would be auto-generated for it.
>
> --
> i.
>
