| Message ID | 20201229135154.23648-1-zhengyongjun3@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [-next] tpm: Use kzalloc for allocating only one thing | expand |
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? James
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
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;
Use kzalloc rather than kcalloc(1,...) The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) // <smpl> @@ @@ - kcalloc(1, + kzalloc( ...) // </smpl> Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com> --- drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)