[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296077098.2448.5.camel@Joe-Laptop>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:24:58 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net_sched: sch_mqprio: dont leak kernel
memory
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 21:23 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 11:55 -0800, David Miller a écrit :
> > From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > > I think the best style to use memset so that any
> > > possible struct padding is guaranteed to be zeroed.
> > Such padding does not exist, and we won't add such padding since this is
> > a user visible data structure and thus whose layout is cast in stone.
> > Anyways, I'm ambivalent to how this is fixed actually.
> I am perfectly aware of this ugly memset() style some people prefer, and
> 5 % of the time they swap 2nd and 3rd param.
Ugly maybe, but correct, definitely.
The same can not be said of the {0}.
This use ends up the same so it doesn't
matter here, it's just a style question.
> Two patches instead of one ;)
How uninteresting. Any API can be misused.
> In this particular case, I only used existing codestyle: In the same
> file I noticed :
There are memset's in the file as well.
In fact, memset is used in the same function.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists