Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] assorted replacement of x[mz]alloc_bytes()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.04.2021 17:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 21/04/2021 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> In the long run I think we want to do away with these type-unsafe
>> interfaces, the more that they also request (typically) excess
>> alignment. This series of entirely independent patches is
>> eliminating the instances where it's relatively clear that they're
>> not just "blob" allocations.
>>
>> v2 only has commit messages extended.
>>
>> 1: x86/MCE: avoid effectively open-coding xmalloc_array()
>> 2: x86/HVM: avoid effectively open-coding xmalloc_array()
>> 3: x86/oprofile: avoid effectively open-coding xmalloc_array()
>> 4: x86/IRQ: avoid over-alignment in alloc_pirq_struct()
>> 5: EFI/runtime: avoid effectively open-coding xmalloc_array()
>> 6: kexec: avoid effectively open-coding xzalloc_flex_struct()
>> 7: video/lfb: avoid effectively open-coding xzalloc_array()
>> 8: Arm/optee: don't open-code xzalloc_flex_struct()
> 
> I'm tempted to nack this, but for now will go with a firm -2 to the
> whole series.

I wonder whether you really mean the whole series - patch 8 clearly
matches the pattern of two of the v1 patches that you did ack yourself.

Jan