On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:14:00 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 16:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:59:27 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > I was a bit surprised to find there isn't a devm_kmalloc.
> >
> > Yes, the unconditional memset is silly. Especia
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 19:18 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Do we have an
> actual cases where this makes meaningful differences?
There are already a few array allocations
where the array is completely reinitialized.
Does it matter? Shrug.
It's more API compatible and more symmetric.
Direct conversi
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:06:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:59:27 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > I was a bit surprised to find there isn't a devm_kmalloc.
>
> Yes, the unconditional memset is silly. Especially when the
> function has a handy gfp_t and could b
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 16:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:59:27 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > I was a bit surprised to find there isn't a devm_kmalloc.
>
> Yes, the unconditional memset is silly. Especially when the
> function has a handy gfp_t and could be passed __GFP_
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:59:27 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> I was a bit surprised to find there isn't a devm_kmalloc.
Yes, the unconditional memset is silly. Especially when the
function has a handy gfp_t and could be passed __GFP_ZERO.
The comment says "managed kzalloc/kfree for device drivers, n
On 10/09/2013 01:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
The commit message doesn't match the patch subject
(shows kzalloc)
I was a bit surprised to find there isn't a devm_kmalloc.
This seems fine otherwise.
I just sent the second patch file after modifying the commit message.
Thank you for your opinion.
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:36 +0900, sangjung.woo wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 01:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:00 +0900, Sangjung Woo wrote:
> >> In order to be free automatically and make the cleanup paths more
> >> simple, use devm_kzalloc() instead of kzalloc().
> > []
> >> dif
On 10/09/2013 01:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:00 +0900, Sangjung Woo wrote:
In order to be free automatically and make the cleanup paths more
simple, use devm_kzalloc() instead of kzalloc().
[]
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c
[]
@@ -106,7
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:00 +0900, Sangjung Woo wrote:
> In order to be free automatically and make the cleanup paths more
> simple, use devm_kzalloc() instead of kzalloc().
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c
[]
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int pl030_probe(struct am
In order to be free automatically and make the cleanup paths more
simple, use devm_kzalloc() instead of kzalloc().
Signed-off-by: Sangjung Woo
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pl030
10 matches
Mail list logo
