linux-kernel - CodingStyle: "kzalloc()" versus "kcalloc(1,...)"

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612071912030.22957@localhost.localdomain>
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/