Re: [PATCH] Documentation: adopt new coding style of type-aware kmalloc-family

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@mailbox.org> writes:

> Update the documentation to reflect new type-aware kmalloc-family as
> suggested in commit 2932ba8d9c99 ("slab: Introduce kmalloc_obj() and family")
>
> ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(*ptr), gfp);
>  -> ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct some_obj_name), gfp);
>  -> ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*ptr), gfp);
>  -> ptr = kzalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> ptr = kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*ptr), gfp);
>  -> ptr = kmalloc_objs(*ptr, count, gfp);
> ptr = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*ptr), gfp);
>  -> ptr = kzalloc_objs(*ptr, count, gfp);
>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@mailbox.org>

Just to be sure, did you write this patch yourself, or did you use some
sort of coding assistant?

Adding Kees, who did this work and might have something to add here.

> ---
>  .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst         |  6 +++---
>  Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst                        |  2 +-
>  Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst                      |  4 ++--

This patch will surely need to be split up; the RCU folks, for example,
will want to evaluate the change separately.

>  Documentation/core-api/kref.rst                      |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/core-api/list.rst                      |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst         |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/driver-api/mailbox.rst                 |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/driver-api/media/v4l2-fh.rst           |  2 +-
>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst             |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst                  |  4 ++--
>  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst               |  8 ++++----
>  .../sound/kernel-api/writing-an-alsa-driver.rst      | 12 ++++++------
>  Documentation/spi/spi-summary.rst                    |  4 ++--
>  .../translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst    |  4 ++--
>  .../translations/it_IT/locking/locktypes.rst         |  4 ++--
>  .../translations/it_IT/process/coding-style.rst      |  2 +-
>  .../translations/sp_SP/process/coding-style.rst      |  2 +-
>  Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/kref.rst   |  4 ++--
>  .../translations/zh_CN/process/coding-style.rst      |  2 +-
>  .../zh_CN/video4linux/v4l2-framework.txt             |  2 +-
>  .../translations/zh_TW/process/coding-style.rst      |  2 +-
>  21 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> index b5cdbba3ec2e..faca5a9c8c12 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ non-\ ``NULL``, locklessly accessing the ``->a`` and ``->b`` fields.
>  
>         1 bool add_gp_buggy(int a, int b)
>         2 {
> -       3   p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       3   p = kmalloc_obj(*p, GFP_KERNEL);

So you have not gone with the "implicit GFP_KERNEL" approach that Linus
added.  Given that, I assume, he wanted that to be the normal style, we
should probably go with it.

Thanks,

jon