On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:13 AM Ilpo Järvinen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:32 AM Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 05:49:28PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > > > Change to a flexible array member to allocate once instead of twice.
> > > >
> > > > Allows using __counted_by for extra runtime analysis. Move the counting
> > > > variable assignment to right after allocation as required by
> > > > __counted_by.
> > > >
> > > > Remove + 1 to allocation. It's already done in the previous line.
> > >
> > > Are you sure this is an accidental +1? I see the "num_sifr++" that
> > > happens earlier, but it's not immediately clear why either that or the
> > > +1 in the original allocation are needed. I'd like to understand why
> > > either/both are/aren't needed.
>
> There's a comment right before the increment:
>
> /*
> * Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is
> * one higher than the SQTY reported value, allocate 1 entry extra.
> */
> num_sifr++;
>
> ..l.which comes from 33297cef3101 ("platform/x86: panasonic-laptop:
> Allocate 1 entry extra in the sinf array").
>
> So I don't know why you said it's not clear why it's there.
>
> > Looks like a rebasing mistake to me honestly.
>
> In which commit?
None in particular. Probably just a mistake.
>
>
> --
> i.
