2022-10-29 21:48:48

by Kang Minchul

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc/memset

This commit replace kmalloc + memset to kzalloc
for better code readability and simplicity.

Following messages are related cocci warnings.

WARNING: kzalloc should be used for d, instead of kmalloc/memset

Signed-off-by: Kang Minchul <[email protected]>
---
V1 -> V2: Change subject prefix

net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
index 7a59c4487050..287d313aa312 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
@@ -824,11 +824,10 @@ static int hci_le_terminate_big(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u8 bis)

bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x bis 0x%2.2x", big, bis);

- d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
+ d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!d)
return -ENOMEM;

- memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
d->big = big;
d->bis = bis;

@@ -861,11 +860,10 @@ static int hci_le_big_terminate(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u16 sync_handle)

bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x sync_handle 0x%4.4x", big, sync_handle);

- d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
+ d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!d)
return -ENOMEM;

- memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
d->big = big;
d->sync_handle = sync_handle;

--
2.34.1



2022-10-29 22:08:21

by bluez.test.bot

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: [v2] Bluetooth: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc/memset

This is automated email and please do not reply to this email!

Dear submitter,

Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list.
This is a CI test results with your patch series:
PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=690188

---Test result---

Test Summary:
CheckPatch PASS 1.40 seconds
GitLint PASS 0.89 seconds
SubjectPrefix PASS 0.62 seconds
BuildKernel PASS 41.75 seconds
BuildKernel32 PASS 36.54 seconds
Incremental Build with patchesPASS 56.77 seconds
TestRunner: Setup PASS 607.79 seconds
TestRunner: l2cap-tester PASS 19.67 seconds
TestRunner: iso-tester PASS 19.76 seconds
TestRunner: bnep-tester PASS 7.30 seconds
TestRunner: mgmt-tester PASS 127.25 seconds
TestRunner: rfcomm-tester PASS 13.28 seconds
TestRunner: sco-tester PASS 12.15 seconds
TestRunner: ioctl-tester PASS 14.10 seconds
TestRunner: mesh-tester PASS 9.79 seconds
TestRunner: smp-tester PASS 10.80 seconds
TestRunner: userchan-tester PASS 7.76 seconds



---
Regards,
Linux Bluetooth

2022-10-30 10:20:56

by Paul Menzel

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc/memset

Dear Kang,


Thank you for the patch.


Am 29.10.22 um 23:40 schrieb Kang Minchul:
> This commit replace kmalloc + memset to kzalloc

replace*s*

(Though starting with “This commit …” is redundant.

> for better code readability and simplicity.
>
> Following messages are related cocci warnings.

Maybe: This addresse the cocci warning below.

> WARNING: kzalloc should be used for d, instead of kmalloc/memset
>
> Signed-off-by: Kang Minchul <[email protected]>
> ---
> V1 -> V2: Change subject prefix
>
> net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> index 7a59c4487050..287d313aa312 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> @@ -824,11 +824,10 @@ static int hci_le_terminate_big(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u8 bis)
>
> bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x bis 0x%2.2x", big, bis);
>
> - d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> + d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!d)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
> d->big = big;
> d->bis = bis;
>
> @@ -861,11 +860,10 @@ static int hci_le_big_terminate(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u16 sync_handle)
>
> bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x sync_handle 0x%4.4x", big, sync_handle);
>
> - d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> + d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!d)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
> d->big = big;
> d->sync_handle = sync_handle;

Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <[email protected]>


Kind regards,

Paul

2022-10-30 10:40:41

by Kang Minchul

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc/memset

> Am 29.10.22 um 23:40 schrieb Kang Minchul:
> > This commit replace kmalloc + memset to kzalloc
>
> replace*s*
>
> (Though starting with “This commit …” is redundant.
>
> > for better code readability and simplicity.
> >
> > Following messages are related cocci warnings.
>
> Maybe: This addresse the cocci warning below.
>
> > WARNING: kzalloc should be used for d, instead of kmalloc/memset
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kang Minchul <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > V1 -> V2: Change subject prefix
> >
> > net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> > index 7a59c4487050..287d313aa312 100644
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> > @@ -824,11 +824,10 @@ static int hci_le_terminate_big(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u8 bis)
> >
> > bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x bis 0x%2.2x", big, bis);
> >
> > - d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!d)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
> > d->big = big;
> > d->bis = bis;
> >
> > @@ -861,11 +860,10 @@ static int hci_le_big_terminate(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 big, u16 sync_handle)
> >
> > bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "big 0x%2.2x sync_handle 0x%4.4x", big, sync_handle);
> >
> > - d = kmalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!d)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
> > d->big = big;
> > d->sync_handle = sync_handle;
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <[email protected]>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul

Thank you so much for your feedback!
Should I amend the previous commit message and resend PATCH v3?

regards,

Kang Minchul

2022-10-30 18:29:23

by Kang Minchul

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc/memset

I just amended the message and sent patch v3.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

regards,

Kang Minchul