lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:16:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: CodingStyle: "kzalloc()" versus "kcalloc(1,...)" i just noticed that there are numerous invocations of kcalloc() where the hard-coded first arg of # elements is "1", which seems like an inappropriate use of kcalloc(). the only rationale i can see is that kcalloc() guarantees that the memory will be set to zero, so i'm guessing that this form of kcalloc() was used before kzalloc() existed, or was used by folks who didn't know that kzalloc() existed. if a (zero-filled) single struct is being allocated, is it worth codifying that that allocation should use kzalloc() and not kcalloc(1,...)? rday - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists