lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/30] mtd: Don't cast kmalloc() return value in drivers/mtd/maps/pmcmsp-flash.c
On 26/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > On 24/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > actually, i would think kcalloc would be more appropriate here, no?
> > >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > msp_parts[i] = kzalloc(pcnt * sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > seems better to me than
> >
> > msp_parts[i] = kcalloc(1, pcnt * sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> i was thinking more along the lines of
>
> msp_parts[i] = kcalloc(pcnt, sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> which was kind of the obvious implication, no?

I guess

> unless there's a
> reason kcalloc() wouldn't work here, this is pretty much what
> kcalloc() was designed for.
>
When Denys brought up the zeroing thing and mentioned kzalloc() I did
consider kcalloc() instead, but kzalloc() makes this allocation nicely
look like the preceding ones visually and I couldn't convince myself
that kcalloc() would give us any real benefit here.

What exactely would using kcalloc() over kzalloc() here buy us?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-26 02:31    [W:0.069 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site