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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:08:34 +0530
From:	Venu Byravarasu <>
To:	Stephen Warren <>
CC:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] usb: phy: tegra: Using devm API for memory allocation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Warren []
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:03 PM
> To: Venu Byravarasu
> Cc:;; linux-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: phy: tegra: Using devm API for memory allocation
> On 12/17/2012 11:21 PM, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> > Using devm_kzalloc for allocating memory needed for PHY
> > pointer and hence removing kfree calls to PHY pointer.
> Since the kfree() here used to be in tegra_usb_phy_close() rather than
> any remove() function, does it actually make sense to use
> devm_kzalloc(); would plain using kzalloc() instead, and not removing
> the kfree() calls, be better?
As you mentioned I can replace kmalloc with kzalloc in the original code 
and push an updated patch.
However, I just wanted to understand if there exists any issue
in using devm_kzalloc instead of kzalloc?

> When the PHY code gets converted to be an actual probed driver, then
> perhaps using devm will make sense.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists