> I have serious doubt whether the whole "plan" for using the sizes to > change the malloc implementation is feasable. The drm(4) code for > example relies on emulation of Linux memory allocation APIs to keep > the diffs small and jsg@ and myself sane. Most of these APIs don't > pass sizes in their "free" interfaces.
There's always the choice of keeping the existing implementation for some types (such as M_DRM) and use a different implementation for other types. And then see how better the new implementation fares. > If passing the sizes around in this bit of code has benefits for > sanity checking purposes, I have no objection. But if it is just > there to silence the kernel printf and actually hurts updating the > code in the future then I wouldn't bother. I seriously doubt there is much coming from upstream zlib in the future.
