[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfuejMqpcfOedPMMTR3EY6s2K+4whoWyk7RmJYPaB176w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:03:50 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devres: zero the memory in devm_krealloc() if needed
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:05 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:27:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > If we're returning the same pointer (when new size is smaller or equal
> > to the old size) we need to check if the user wants the memory zeroed
> > and memset() it manually if so.
>
> Any use case? Because to me it sounds contradictory to the whole idea of [k]realloc().
>
This is kind of a gray area in original krealloc() too and I want to
submit a patch for mm too. Right now krealloc ignores the __GFP_ZERO
flag if new_size <= old_size but zeroes the memory if new_size >
old_size. This should be consistent - either ignore __GFP_ZERO or
don't ignore it in both cases. I think that not ignoring it is better
- if user passes it then it's for a reason.
Bartosz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists