On 26/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > On 26/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > technically, nothing. but if you're not going to use kcalloc() when > you're explicitly allocating an array of identical objects (that you > want zero-filled, as a bonus), then what's the point of ever having > defined a kcalloc() routine in the first place? > I wonder a bit about that myself...
I have found some other issues in that function that I want to fix, so I'll be respinning the patch as a patch series instead - and why not; I'll just go with kcalloc() and see what the maintainers have to say, it's not like I personally care much one way or the other. -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/