[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <07635976-4FC3-4E14-9B94-CE4D6446FD4E@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:14:25 -0500
From: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Feb 14, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> kcalloc is still there. Certainly useful for legacy purposes. But I'd feel
> better if I had fine grained control over the size of my allocation rather
> than rely on the slab allocators to check up on my multiplication.
>
> With these patches both is possible. And if you want the check of an
> allocation that is not zeroed then you can do so because you have a
> function that will perform the size check for you without calling into the
> slab allocator.
In the code you proposed, where calculate_array_size() returns 0
for overflow, one has to write:
size_t s = calculate_array_size(n, size);
if (s)
p = kmalloc(s, ...);
This "if" thing is just too verbose --- you need three lines to
allocate an array.
We could change calculate_array_size() to return ULONG_MAX or some
large number with which kmalloc() would fail. Then one would write:
p = kmalloc(calculate_array_size(n, size), ...);
This looks better to me. The advantage is that we don't need another
allocator (and avoid this name picking game). The disadvantage is
that the semantics of calculate_array_size(), returning ULONG_MAX
on overflow, sounds sort of strange.
- xi
--
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