Change array_size() to vmalloc_array(), Due to vmalloc_array()
is optimized better,uses fewer instructions, and handles
overflow more concisely

Signed-off-by: tanze <tanze@kylinos.cn>
---
 sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c | 8 ++++----
 sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c        | 2 +-
 sound/pci/emu10k1/p16v.c         | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
index b2fe2d164ba8..bdbd2dea1c4a 100644
--- a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
+++ b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
@@ -1574,10 +1574,10 @@ int snd_emu10k1_create(struct snd_card *card,
 		(unsigned long)emu->ptb_pages.addr,
 		(unsigned long)(emu->ptb_pages.addr + emu->ptb_pages.bytes));
 
-	emu->page_ptr_table = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(void *),
-						 emu->max_cache_pages));
-	emu->page_addr_table = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(unsigned long),
-						  emu->max_cache_pages));
+	emu->page_ptr_table = vmalloc_array(emu->max_cache_pages,
+					    sizeof(void *));
+	emu->page_addr_table = vmalloc_array(emu->max_cache_pages,
+					     sizeof(unsigned long));
 	if (!emu->page_ptr_table || !emu->page_addr_table)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
diff --git a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
index 37af7bf76347..091f6accfc44 100644
--- a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
+++ b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
@@ -2629,7 +2629,7 @@ int snd_emu10k1_efx_alloc_pm_buffer(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu)
 	if (! emu->tram_val_saved || ! emu->tram_addr_saved)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	len = emu->audigy ? 2 * 1024 : 2 * 512;
-	emu->saved_icode = vmalloc(array_size(len, 4));
+	emu->saved_icode = vmalloc_array(len, 4);
 	if (! emu->saved_icode)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	return 0;
diff --git a/sound/pci/emu10k1/p16v.c b/sound/pci/emu10k1/p16v.c
index b74128e61254..79b097ada22b 100644
--- a/sound/pci/emu10k1/p16v.c
+++ b/sound/pci/emu10k1/p16v.c
@@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ int snd_p16v_mixer(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu)
 
 int snd_p16v_alloc_pm_buffer(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu)
 {
-	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc(array_size(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80));
+	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc_array(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80);
 	if (! emu->p16v_saved)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	return 0;
-- 
2.25.1

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:27:38PM +0800, tanze wrote:
> Change array_size() to vmalloc_array(), Due to vmalloc_array()
> is optimized better,uses fewer instructions, and handles

better, uses

(mind a space after a comma)

> overflow more concisely

concisely.

(mind a period at the end)

...

> -	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc(array_size(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80));
> +	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc_array(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80);

I think this should be

	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc(array3_size(NUM_CHS, 4, 0x80));

Or, if we have vmalloc_array3(), which I doubt, use it.

But since NUM_CHS sounds like a compile time constant, the above approach may
work too.

Anyway, this can be addressed later.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

在 2025/10/23 14:35, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:27:38PM +0800, tanze wrote:
>> Change array_size() to vmalloc_array(), Due to vmalloc_array()
>> is optimized better,uses fewer instructions, and handles
> 
> better, uses
> 
> (mind a space after a comma)
> 
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will correct
the error in the description in a subsequent version.

>> overflow more concisely
> 
> concisely.
> 
> (mind a period at the end)
> 
> ...
> 
>> -	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc(array_size(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80));
>> +	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc_array(NUM_CHS * 4, 0x80);
> 
> I think this should be
> 
> 	emu->p16v_saved = vmalloc(array3_size(NUM_CHS, 4, 0x80));
> 
> Or, if we have vmalloc_array3(), which I doubt, use it.
>
> But since NUM_CHS sounds like a compile time constant, the above approach may
> work too.
>
Hi, Andy Shevchenko.

I just checked the code and found that vmalloc_array3() does not exist 
yet. Initially, I only thought that vmalloc_array() is better and more 
concise than vmalloc(array3_size()). What do you think would be the 
better approach here?

> Anyway, this can be addressed later.
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> 

--
Best regards,
Ze Tan