Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH]use kzalloc in vfs where appropriate | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:09:26 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 14:29 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Samstag, 18. März 2006 11:55 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 11:44 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Freitag, 17. März 2006 22:08 schrieb Matthew Wilcox: > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > --- a/fs/bio.c 2006-03-11 23:12:55.000000000 +0100 > > > > > +++ b/fs/bio.c 2006-03-17 16:44:49.000000000 +0100 > > > > > @@ -635,12 +635,10 @@ > > > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > > > > > > > > > ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > - pages = kmalloc(nr_pages * sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + pages = kzalloc(nr_pages * sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > Didn't we just discuss this one and conclude it needed to use kcalloc > > > > instead? > > > > > > I've found some discussion in the archive, but no conclusion. Could you > > > elaborate? > > > > kcalloc is the array allocator. > > Here.. you're allocating an array of nr_pages worth of pointers. > > kcalloc does extra checks because it KNOWS it's an array... > > I see. A patch is coming. > Shouldn't this check from slab.h: > > if (n != 0 && size > INT_MAX / n) > return NULL; > > carry an "unlikely"?
gcc is most likely smart enough for that already, and most of the time n is a compile time constant already :)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |