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?