.../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +---- .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device
instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path
and uses struct_size() for a single allocation.
Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle
Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
---
.../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +----
.../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++----------
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
index 1a8dabc4ada4..e62785952b0d 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
u32 ver, algo_flags;
int ret;
- eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*eip93), GFP_KERNEL);
+ eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(eip93, ring, 1), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!eip93)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -436,10 +436,6 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (ret)
return ret;
- eip93->ring = devm_kcalloc(eip93->dev, 1, sizeof(*eip93->ring), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!eip93->ring)
- return -ENOMEM;
-
ret = eip93_desc_init(eip93);
if (ret)
return ret;
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
index 990c2401b7ce..5f0f51081743 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
+++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
@@ -92,17 +92,6 @@
EIP93_HASH_SHA224 | \
EIP93_HASH_SHA256))
-/**
- * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
- */
-struct eip93_device {
- void __iomem *base;
- struct device *dev;
- struct clk *clk;
- int irq;
- struct eip93_ring *ring;
-};
-
struct eip93_desc_ring {
void *base;
void *base_end;
@@ -131,6 +120,17 @@ struct eip93_ring {
struct idr crypto_async_idr;
};
+/**
+ * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
+ */
+struct eip93_device {
+ void __iomem *base;
+ struct device *dev;
+ struct clk *clk;
+ int irq;
+ struct eip93_ring ring[];
+};
+
enum eip93_alg_type {
EIP93_ALG_TYPE_AEAD,
EIP93_ALG_TYPE_SKCIPHER,
--
2.55.0On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 03:40:28PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device > instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path > and uses struct_size() for a single allocation. > > Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com> > --- > .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +---- > .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++---------- > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) Patch applied. Thanks. -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
On 04/08/2026 00.40, Rosen Penev wrote:
> Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device
> instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path
> and uses struct_size() for a single allocation.
>
> Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle
> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> ---
> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +----
> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++----------
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> index 1a8dabc4ada4..e62785952b0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> u32 ver, algo_flags;
> int ret;
>
> - eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*eip93), GFP_KERNEL);
> + eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(eip93, ring, 1), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!eip93)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -436,10 +436,6 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - eip93->ring = devm_kcalloc(eip93->dev, 1, sizeof(*eip93->ring), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!eip93->ring)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> ret = eip93_desc_init(eip93);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> index 990c2401b7ce..5f0f51081743 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> @@ -92,17 +92,6 @@
> EIP93_HASH_SHA224 | \
> EIP93_HASH_SHA256))
>
> -/**
> - * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> - */
> -struct eip93_device {
> - void __iomem *base;
> - struct device *dev;
> - struct clk *clk;
> - int irq;
> - struct eip93_ring *ring;
> -};
> -
> struct eip93_desc_ring {
> void *base;
> void *base_end;
> @@ -131,6 +120,17 @@ struct eip93_ring {
> struct idr crypto_async_idr;
> };
>
> +/**
> + * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> + */
> +struct eip93_device {
> + void __iomem *base;
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + int irq;
> + struct eip93_ring ring[];
> +};
This looks weird, too. If there is always only one "ring", why don't you
embed it without the "[]" into the struct eip93_device directly?
Thomas
On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 12:11 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2026 00.40, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device
> > instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path
> > and uses struct_size() for a single allocation.
> >
> > Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle
> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +----
> > .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++----------
> > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> > index 1a8dabc4ada4..e62785952b0d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> > @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > u32 ver, algo_flags;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*eip93), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(eip93, ring, 1), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!eip93)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -436,10 +436,6 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - eip93->ring = devm_kcalloc(eip93->dev, 1, sizeof(*eip93->ring), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!eip93->ring)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > ret = eip93_desc_init(eip93);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> > index 990c2401b7ce..5f0f51081743 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> > @@ -92,17 +92,6 @@
> > EIP93_HASH_SHA224 | \
> > EIP93_HASH_SHA256))
> >
> > -/**
> > - * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> > - */
> > -struct eip93_device {
> > - void __iomem *base;
> > - struct device *dev;
> > - struct clk *clk;
> > - int irq;
> > - struct eip93_ring *ring;
> > -};
> > -
> > struct eip93_desc_ring {
> > void *base;
> > void *base_end;
> > @@ -131,6 +120,17 @@ struct eip93_ring {
> > struct idr crypto_async_idr;
> > };
> >
> > +/**
> > + * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> > + */
> > +struct eip93_device {
> > + void __iomem *base;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + struct clk *clk;
> > + int irq;
> > + struct eip93_ring ring[];
> > +};
> This looks weird, too. If there is always only one "ring", why don't you
> embed it without the "[]" into the struct eip93_device directly?
keeps all callers the same. -> vs .
>
> Thomas
>
On 04/08/2026 09.18, Rosen Penev wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 12:11 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/08/2026 00.40, Rosen Penev wrote:
>>> Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device
>>> instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path
>>> and uses struct_size() for a single allocation.
>>>
>>> Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle
>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +----
>>> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++----------
>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
>>> index 1a8dabc4ada4..e62785952b0d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
>>> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> u32 ver, algo_flags;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*eip93), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(eip93, ring, 1), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!eip93)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> @@ -436,10 +436,6 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> - eip93->ring = devm_kcalloc(eip93->dev, 1, sizeof(*eip93->ring), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (!eip93->ring)
>>> - return -ENOMEM;
>>> -
>>> ret = eip93_desc_init(eip93);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
>>> index 990c2401b7ce..5f0f51081743 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
>>> @@ -92,17 +92,6 @@
>>> EIP93_HASH_SHA224 | \
>>> EIP93_HASH_SHA256))
>>>
>>> -/**
>>> - * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
>>> - */
>>> -struct eip93_device {
>>> - void __iomem *base;
>>> - struct device *dev;
>>> - struct clk *clk;
>>> - int irq;
>>> - struct eip93_ring *ring;
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> struct eip93_desc_ring {
>>> void *base;
>>> void *base_end;
>>> @@ -131,6 +120,17 @@ struct eip93_ring {
>>> struct idr crypto_async_idr;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
>>> + */
>>> +struct eip93_device {
>>> + void __iomem *base;
>>> + struct device *dev;
>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>> + int irq;
>>> + struct eip93_ring ring[];
>>> +};
>> This looks weird, too. If there is always only one "ring", why don't you
>> embed it without the "[]" into the struct eip93_device directly?
> keeps all callers the same. -> vs .
So it's basically keeping the patch small and generating many WTFs for
future reviewers of the code vs. having a bigger patch now and better
understable code in the future. Not my decision (it's up to the
maintainers), but FWIW I'd rather go with option 2.
Anyway, if you want to keep it short, wouldn't it also be possible to
declare it as ring[1] instead and then keep the sizeof() instead of the
struct_size() ?
Thomas
On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 12:47 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2026 09.18, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 12:11 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 04/08/2026 00.40, Rosen Penev wrote:
> >>> Embed the single ring as a flexible array member in eip93_device
> >>> instead of allocating it separately. This simplifies the probe path
> >>> and uses struct_size() for a single allocation.
> >>>
> >>> Assisted-by: opencode:big-pickle
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c | 6 +----
> >>> .../crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h | 22 +++++++++----------
> >>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> >>> index 1a8dabc4ada4..e62785952b0d 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.c
> >>> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> u32 ver, algo_flags;
> >>> int ret;
> >>>
> >>> - eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*eip93), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + eip93 = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(eip93, ring, 1), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> if (!eip93)
> >>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -436,10 +436,6 @@ static int eip93_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> return ret;
> >>>
> >>> - eip93->ring = devm_kcalloc(eip93->dev, 1, sizeof(*eip93->ring), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> - if (!eip93->ring)
> >>> - return -ENOMEM;
> >>> -
> >>> ret = eip93_desc_init(eip93);
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> return ret;
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> >>> index 990c2401b7ce..5f0f51081743 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/eip93/eip93-main.h
> >>> @@ -92,17 +92,6 @@
> >>> EIP93_HASH_SHA224 | \
> >>> EIP93_HASH_SHA256))
> >>>
> >>> -/**
> >>> - * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> >>> - */
> >>> -struct eip93_device {
> >>> - void __iomem *base;
> >>> - struct device *dev;
> >>> - struct clk *clk;
> >>> - int irq;
> >>> - struct eip93_ring *ring;
> >>> -};
> >>> -
> >>> struct eip93_desc_ring {
> >>> void *base;
> >>> void *base_end;
> >>> @@ -131,6 +120,17 @@ struct eip93_ring {
> >>> struct idr crypto_async_idr;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * struct eip93_device - crypto engine device structure
> >>> + */
> >>> +struct eip93_device {
> >>> + void __iomem *base;
> >>> + struct device *dev;
> >>> + struct clk *clk;
> >>> + int irq;
> >>> + struct eip93_ring ring[];
> >>> +};
> >> This looks weird, too. If there is always only one "ring", why don't you
> >> embed it without the "[]" into the struct eip93_device directly?
> > keeps all callers the same. -> vs .
> So it's basically keeping the patch small and generating many WTFs for
> future reviewers of the code vs. having a bigger patch now and better
> understable code in the future. Not my decision (it's up to the
> maintainers), but FWIW I'd rather go with option 2.
>
> Anyway, if you want to keep it short, wouldn't it also be possible to
> declare it as ring[1] instead and then keep the sizeof() instead of the
> struct_size() ?
No because [1] arrays are deprecated.
>
> Thomas
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.