On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 06:24:05PM +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 10:15:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 07:47:01PM +0700, Minh Bùi Quang wrote:
> > > Vào Th 6, 4 thg 12, 2020 vào lúc 23:12 Alan Stern
> > > đã viết:
> > > > Does this
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 10:15:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 07:47:01PM +0700, Minh Bùi Quang wrote:
> > Vào Th 6, 4 thg 12, 2020 vào lúc 23:12 Alan Stern
> > đã viết:
> > > Does this initialization end up using less memory than an explicit
> > > memset() call?
> >
> >
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 07:47:01PM +0700, Minh Bùi Quang wrote:
> Vào Th 6, 4 thg 12, 2020 vào lúc 23:12 Alan Stern
> đã viết:
> > Does this initialization end up using less memory than an explicit
> > memset() call?
>
> You mean speed?
No, I mean memory space.
A memset call requires a
Vào Th 6, 4 thg 12, 2020 vào lúc 23:12 Alan Stern
đã viết:
> Does this initialization end up using less memory than an explicit
> memset() call?
You mean speed? In my opinion, there is no difference in speed between 2 ways.
When I compile this array initialization using gcc 5.4.0, this
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:24:49AM +, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
> This error path
>
> err_add_pdata:
> for (i = 0; i < mod_data.num; i++)
> kfree(dum[i]);
>
> can be triggered when not all dum's elements are initialized.
>
> Fix this by initializing all
This error path
err_add_pdata:
for (i = 0; i < mod_data.num; i++)
kfree(dum[i]);
can be triggered when not all dum's elements are initialized.
Fix this by initializing all dum's elements to NULL.
Signed-off-by: Bui Quang Minh
---
6 matches
Mail list logo
