Re: [PATCH 00/18] use ARRAY_SIZE macro

[Jérémy Lefaure]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:22:24 -0400
bfie...@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:

> Mainly I'd just like to know which you're asking for.  Do you want me to
> apply this, or to ACK it so someone else can?  If it's sent as a series
> I tend to assume the latter.
> 
> But in this case I'm assuming it's the former, so I'll pick up the nfsd
> one
Could you to apply the NFSD patch ("nfsd: use ARRAY_SIZE") with the
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton ) tag please ?

This patch is an individual patch and it should not have been sent in a
series (sorry about that).

Thank you,
Jérémy

Re: [PATCH 00/18] use ARRAY_SIZE macro

[Jérémy Lefaure]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:01:31 +1100
"Tobin C. Harding"  wrote:

> > In order to reduce the size of the To: and Cc: lines, each patch of the
> > series is sent only to the maintainers and lists concerned by the patch.
> > This cover letter is sent to every list concerned by this series.  
> 
> Why don't you just send individual patches for each subsystem? I'm not a 
> maintainer but I don't see
> how any one person is going to be able to apply this whole series, it is 
> making it hard for
> maintainers if they have to pick patches out from among the series (if indeed 
> any will bother
> doing that).
Yeah, maybe it would have been better to send individual patches.

>From my point of view it's a series because the patches are related (I
did a git format-patch from my local branch). But for the maintainers
point of view, they are individual patches.

As each patch in this series is standalone, the maintainers can pick
the patches they want and apply them individually. So yeah, maybe I
should have sent individual patches. But I also wanted to tie all
patches together as it's the same change.

Anyway, I can tell to each maintainer that they can apply the patches
they're concerned about and next time I may send individual patches.

Thank you for your answer,
Jérémy

[PATCH 07/18] scsi: bfa: use ARRAY_SIZE

[Jérémy Lefaure]

Using the ARRAY_SIZE macro improves the readability of the code.

Found with Coccinelle with the following semantic patch:
@r depends on (org || report)@
type T;
T[] E;
position p;
@@
(
 (sizeof(E)@p /sizeof(*E))
|
 (sizeof(E)@p /sizeof(E[...]))
|
 (sizeof(E)@p /sizeof(T))
)

Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefa...@lse.epita.fr>
---
 drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_core.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_core.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_core.c
index 3e1caec82554..4a03cd9fa63f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_core.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_core.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
  * General Public License for more details.
  */
 
+#include 
 #include "bfad_drv.h"
 #include "bfa_modules.h"
 #include "bfi_reg.h"
@@ -1957,7 +1958,7 @@ bfa_get_pciids(struct bfa_pciid_s **pciids, int *npciids)
{BFA_PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROCADE, BFA_PCI_DEVICE_ID_CT_FC},
};
 
-   *npciids = sizeof(__pciids) / sizeof(__pciids[0]);
+   *npciids = ARRAY_SIZE(__pciids);
*pciids = __pciids;
 }
 
-- 
2.14.1

[PATCH 00/18] use ARRAY_SIZE macro

[Jérémy Lefaure]

Hi everyone,
Using ARRAY_SIZE improves the code readability. I used coccinelle (I
made a change to the array_size.cocci file [1]) to find several places
where ARRAY_SIZE could be used instead of other macros or sizeof
division.

I tried to divide the changes into a patch per subsystem (excepted for
staging). If one of the patch should be split into several patches, let
me know.

In order to reduce the size of the To: and Cc: lines, each patch of the
series is sent only to the maintainers and lists concerned by the patch.
This cover letter is sent to every list concerned by this series.

This series is based on linux-next next-20170929. Each patch has been
tested by building the relevant files with W=1.

This series contains the following patches:
[PATCH 01/18] sound: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 02/18] tracing/filter: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 03/18] media: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 04/18] IB/mlx5: Use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 05/18] net: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 06/18] drm: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 07/18] scsi: bfa: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 08/18] ecryptfs: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 09/18] nfsd: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 10/18] orangefs: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 11/18] dm space map metadata: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 12/18] x86: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 13/18] tpm: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 14/18] ipmi: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 15/18] acpi: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 16/18] media: staging: atomisp: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 17/18] staging: rtl8723bs: use ARRAY_SIZE
[PATCH 18/18] staging: rtlwifi: use ARRAY_SIZE


[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/13/689

[PATCH] scsi: sd: fix warning on min_not_zero use

[Jérémy Lefaure]

When calling min_not_zero, both arguments should have the same type.
Otherwise the compiler will raise a warning:

  CC  drivers/scsi/sd.o
In file included from ./include/linux/list.h:8:0,
 from ./include/linux/module.h:9,
 from drivers/scsi/sd.c:35:
drivers/scsi/sd.c: In function ‘sd_revalidate_disk’:
./include/linux/kernel.h:755:16: warning: comparison of distinct pointer
types lacks a cast
  (void) ( == );   \
^
./include/linux/kernel.h:758:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__min’
  __min(typeof(x), typeof(y),   \
  ^
./include/linux/kernel.h:783:39: note: in expansion of macro ‘min’
  __x == 0 ? __y : ((__y == 0) ? __x : min(__x, __y)); })
   ^~~
drivers/scsi/sd.c:2959:12: note: in expansion of macro ‘min_not_zero’
   rw_max = min_not_zero(logical_to_sectors(sdp, dev_max),
^~~~

Casting the BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS constant fixes this issue.

Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # v4.4+
Fixes: c3e62673ee20 ("scsi: sd: Consider max_xfer_blocks if opt_xfer_blocks is 
unusable")
Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefa...@lse.epita.fr>
---
 drivers/scsi/sd.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
index ab9011a6257d..7dce3592033d 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
@@ -2955,9 +2955,10 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
logical_to_bytes(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks) >= PAGE_SIZE) {
q->limits.io_opt = logical_to_bytes(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks);
rw_max = logical_to_sectors(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks);
-   } else
+   } else {
rw_max = min_not_zero(logical_to_sectors(sdp, dev_max),
- BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS);
+ (sector_t)BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS);
+   }
 
/* Combine with controller limits */
q->limits.max_sectors = min(rw_max, queue_max_hw_sectors(q));
-- 
2.12.2