[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2c99dcc-8dea-b8a4-5244-08bb7c0ee1e8@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:10:13 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, walter harms <wharms@....de>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Replacing specific kmalloc() calls by kmalloc_array()?
> Or kmalloc_array, since zeroing is not necessary. Might be an idea for
> a new Coccinelle script, like
>
> - kmalloc (N * sizeof T, GFP)
> + kmalloc_array(N, sizeof T, GFP)
I have picked your idea up. The corresponding script for the semantic
patch language became longer than your general suggestion
(if additional source code control flow aspects are integrated).
Would it make sense to check any more function combinations
in a similar way?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists