[PATCH][next] mtd: rawnand: Replace one-element array with flexible-array member
Miquel Raynal
miquel.raynal at bootlin.com
Thu Oct 1 04:12:06 EDT 2020
Hi Jann,
Jann Horn <jannh at google.com> wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:32:24 +0200:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:30 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars at kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:10:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> > > <gustavoars at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
> > > > a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
> > > > should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
> > > > style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
> > >
> > > But this is not such a case, right? Isn't this a true fixed-size
> > > array? It sounds like you're just changing it because it
> > > pattern-matched on "array of length 1 at the end of a struct".
> >
> > Yeah; I should have changed that 'dynamically' part of the text above
> > a bit. However, as I commented in the text below, in the case that more
> > CS IDs are needed (let's wait for the maintainers to comment on this...)
> > in the future, this change makes the code more maintainable, as for
> > the allocation part, the developer would only have to update the CS_N
> > macro to the number of CS IDs that are needed.
>
> But in that case, shouldn't you change it to "int cs[CS_N]" and get
> rid of the struct_size() stuff?
I do agree with Jann, I think it's best to consider this a fixed-size
array for now. If we ever want to extend the number of supported CS,
there is much more rework involved anyway.
Thanks,
Miquèl
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list