[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLEVy9AyoU56n6F066gX28b_EJ1Ue=Qz+FWMgJL43OWPag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:31:03 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Uninline kcalloc
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Me neither. I don't think Christoph's SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE() suggestion
>> makes much sense, really. It's more verbose, less obvious API, and
>> doesn't really deal with the overflow case cleanly.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> IMHO Having a function to deal with the overflow of a multiplication and
> then do an allocation based on the result is a conflation of two different
> things that need to be separate. kcalloc only exists because there is
> an ancient user space function that somehow got a second parameter instead
> of just using the same as malloc().
It's an ancient userspace function that everybody knows how to use.
There really isn't big enough gains from SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE() to justify
a new API. And it's not as if the macro is an elegant way to solve the
problem at hand either.
Pekka
--
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