Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Documentation: deprecated.rst: kmalloc-family: mark argument as optional

[Manuel Ebner]

On Wed, 2026-04-29 at 18:03 -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:27:04 +0200 Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > put the optional argument (gfp) in square brackets
> > add default value = GFP_KERNEL
> > 
> > eg. ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> >  -> ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr [, gfp] );
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I have a trivial question below, but because it is trivial,
> 
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > index fed56864d036..ac75b7ecac47 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > @@ -392,13 +392,14 @@ allocations. For example, these open coded
> > assignments::
> >  
> >  become, respectively::
> >  
> > -	ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> > -	ptr = kzalloc_obj(*ptr, gfp);
> > -	ptr = kmalloc_objs(*ptr, count, gfp);
> > -	ptr = kzalloc_objs(*ptr, count, gfp);
> > -	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count, gfp);
> > -	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo, gfp);
> > -
> > +	ptr = kmalloc_obj(*ptr [, gfp] );
> > +	ptr = kzalloc_obj(*ptr [, gfp] );
> > +	ptr = kmalloc_objs(*ptr, count [, gfp] );
> > +	ptr = kzalloc_objs(*ptr, count [, gfp] );
> > +	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count [, gfp] );
> > +	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo [, gfp] );
> > +
> > +The argument gfp is optional, the default value is GFP_KERNEL.
> >  If `ptr->flex_member` is annotated with __counted_by(), the allocation
> >  will automatically fail if `count` is larger than the maximum
> >  representable value that can be stored in the counter member associated
> 
> Like 'ptr->flex_member' and 'count', why don't you enclose 'gfp' and
> 'GFP_KERNEL' with backticks ('`')?

I didn't know what ` is doing, so didn't consider it. It makes sense to
enclose these two.
should __counted_by() be enclosed aswell?

> Thanks,
> SJ

Thanks
 Manuel
---
The possibility of getting blamed has to be earned.