Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date:   Thu, 01 Oct 2020 11:21:22 +0200
From:   Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        Lucas Stach <dev@lynxeye.de>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] mtd: rawnand: Replace one-element array with
 flexible-array member
In-Reply-To: <20201001101206.6e4beea7@xps13>
References: <20200930210824.GA12277@embeddedor>
 <CAG48ez3X3aZwfde3_2Sc+gdtUGRHfzan6oNFiffAvNzFDSsFDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200930213634.GA12855@embeddedor>
 <CAG48ez3XqE0m2UmRh+OtmYJRhyCBYY=sdJKaWBXtJZKCRpLMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201001101206.6e4beea7@xps13>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.1
Message-ID: <22e3b020f4c7e7a8cd0c1f474ba07cad@agner.ch>
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-10-01 10:12, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Jann,
> 
> Jann Horn <jannh@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@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@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.

I agree, too, just assume this is a fixed-size array of 1 element.

In fact, I am not aware of a design which needs multiple chip selects.

--
Stefan