[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)
    On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Jens Axboe wrote:

    > On Fri, Jan 21 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
    > > Tigran> Hi Linus, a common code sequence of calling kmalloc() and then
    > > Tigran> memset(p,0,size) can be optimized into a single exported
    > >
    > > The only thing it does is to introduce a new non standard name which
    > > makes current code less readable.
    > I tend to agree. When (if) the concept of zeroing pages during idle
    > time ever gets into the kernel, then it might be worth it having
    > a way to get kmalloc() to return zeroed memory. For now it simply
    > reduces readability for zero gain.

    Consider this:

    get_free_page() returns a zeroed page. __get_free_page() returns a page.
    Both names are readable. What is the benefit of doing

    page = get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
    if (!page)
    /* failed */
    .. use page ..

    rather than:

    page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
    if (!page)
    /* failed */
    clear_page((void *)page);
    ... use page ...

    You do agree that the first form is more readable although it wastes an
    extra if() (one is done inside get_free_page()), don't you? Therefore, for
    the same reason it is more readable to use kzalloc() in cases where you
    would do kmalloc()/memset(). What is the difference? (other than the fact
    that I made it a function instead of a macro or inline as Ingo correctly
    pointed out).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.019 / U:13.828 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site