On 05:11 Втр 24 Июл , Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Dmitry Monakhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Jul 24, 2007 4:59 AM
> >To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >Cc: device-mapper development <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [PATCH 8/8] dm: dm-target.c Convert kmalloc + memset to kzalloc
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >---
> > drivers/md/dm-target.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-target.c b/drivers/md/dm-target.c
> >index 477a041..835cf95 100644
> >--- a/drivers/md/dm-target.c
> >+++ b/drivers/md/dm-target.c
> >@@ -88,12 +88,10 @@ void dm_put_target_type(struct target_type *t)
> >
> > static struct tt_internal *alloc_target(struct target_type *t)
> > {
> >- struct tt_internal *ti = kmalloc(sizeof(*ti), GFP_KERNEL);
> >+ struct tt_internal *ti = kzalloc(sizeof(*ti), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> >- if (ti) {
> >- memset(ti, 0, sizeof(*ti));
> >+ if (ti)
> > ti->tt = *t;
> >- }
> >
> > return ti;
> > }
> >--
> >1.5.2.2
> >
> >
>
> would it not have made more sense to have submitted all those related,
> single-change patches as one patch?
Yes i think so (i've already wrote bout this in fist msg), but
dm maintainers may have different oppinion.
BTW: It is allways easier fold many patches to one, than split one
patch to many.
>
> rday
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
