[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator
> > I wonder why we don't have type safe object allocators a-la new() in
> > C++ or g_new() in glib?
> >
> > fooptr = k_new(struct foo, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > is nicer and more descriptive than
> >
> > fooptr = kmalloc(sizeof(*fooptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > and more safe than
> >
> > fooptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > And we have zillions of both variants.
> Hmmm yes I think that would be good. However, please clean up the naming.
> The variant on zeroing on zering get to be too much.

OK, there seems to be a consensus on that ;)


> I do not see any _node variants?

Well, those are _very_ rare, I'd only add those if there's a demand
for them.

> The array variants translate into kmalloc anyways and are used
> in an inconsistent manner. Sometime this way sometimes the other. Leave
> them?

If the too many variants are bothersome, then I'd rather just have the
array variant, and give 1 as an array size for the non-array case.

> kcalloc(n, size, flags) == kmalloc(size, flags)
> Then kzalloc is equivalent to adding the __GFP_ZERO flag. Thus
> kzalloc(size, flags) == kmalloc(size, flags | __GFPZERO)
> If you define a new flag like GFP_ZERO_ATOMIC and GFP_ZERO_KERNEL you
> could do
> kalloc(struct, GFP_ZERO_KERNEL)
> instead of adding new variants?

I don't really like this, introducing new gfp flags just makes
grepping harder.

I do think that at least having a zeroing and a non-zeroing variant
makes sense.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-02 09:41    [W:0.182 / U:27.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site