[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM2PR02MB0626DBB0F190F1BF66EA638EBCB40@AM2PR02MB0626.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:53:59 +0000
From: Gil Fruchter <gilf@...hip.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
"Chris Metcalf" <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Prefer kcalloc over kzalloc with multiply
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:26:28 +0300
> Gil Fruchter <gilf@...hip.com> wrote:
>
>> fix checkpatch warning for using kzalloc with multiply:
>> WARNING: Prefer kcalloc over kzalloc with multiply
>> + iter->buffer_iter = kzalloc(sizeof(*iter->buffer_iter)
>> * num_possible_cpus(),
>
> I'm not against applying this patch, but "fix checkpatch warning" is never rational for a change.
>
> This should say something like, "Use kcalloc for allocating an array instead of a simple multiplier with kzalloc, as that is what kcalloc is used for."
>
> In other words, if checkpatch found something that should be change, have the change log tell us why it should be changed. You can than add a "Found with checkpatch" to give checkpatch the credit.
>
> -- Steve
>
Thanks for the input Steve.
I will create a v2 with an appropriate explanation for this change.
Can I add a Reviewed-by tag by you?
Gil
--
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