On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:36 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:32:45AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > I think expanding the number of allocation functions
> > > > is not necessary.
> > > 
> > > I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected
> > > allocation functions makes sense.
> > 
> > Function symmetry matters too.
> > 
> > These allocation functions are specific to kvz<foo>
> > and are not symmetric for k<foo>, v<foo>, devm_<foo>
> > <foo>_node, and the like.
> 
> If somebody wants them, then we can add them.

Yeah, but I don't think any of it is necessary.

How many of these struct+bufsize * count entries
actually exist?

Reply via email to