On Dec 7, 2018, at 4:47 PM, David Harton (dharton) <dhar...@cisco.com<mailto:dhar...@cisco.com>> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com<mailto:keith.wi...@intel.com>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 6:41 PM To: David Harton (dharton) <dhar...@cisco.com<mailto:dhar...@cisco.com>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com<mailto:anatoly.bura...@intel.com>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix rte_zalloc_socket to zero memory On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:24 PM, David Harton <dhar...@cisco.com<mailto:dhar...@cisco.com>> wrote: The zalloc and calloc functions do not actually zero the memory. Added memset to rte_zmalloc_socket() so allocated memory is cleared. Signed-off-by: David Harton <dhar...@cisco.com<mailto:dhar...@cisco.com>> --- lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c index 0da5ad5e8..be382e534 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c @@ -74,7 +74,9 @@ rte_malloc(const char *type, size_t size, unsigned align) void * rte_zmalloc_socket(const char *type, size_t size, unsigned align, int socket) { - return rte_malloc_socket(type, size, align, socket); + void *new_ptr = rte_malloc_socket(type, size, align, socket); + if (new_ptr) memset(new_ptr, 0, size); Someone will hate me, but the memset() line should be on the next line not on the ‘if’ line. It does not explicitly state in the coding style, but do not see any example in the coding style on having the one line statement on the line of the ‘if’. What is the ruling here, I would suggest it be on the next line? FWIW, I copied the pattern from rte_free() but I it is the only use in the file. I have no problems changing it and fixing rte_free() too if that is the desire. Lets wait for the big guns to decide what is the correct method and updated the coding style. This also points to a problem as we need a tool to run and fix up the code, like uncrustify or similar tool, this way I can stop being the code style police :-) + return new_ptr; } /* -- 2.19.1 Regards, Keith Regards, Keith
