On 26/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > On 24/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > actually, i would think kcalloc would be more appropriate here, no? > > > > > > > Why? > > > > msp_parts[i] = kzalloc(pcnt * sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > seems better to me than > > > > msp_parts[i] = kcalloc(1, pcnt * sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL); > > i was thinking more along the lines of > > msp_parts[i] = kcalloc(pcnt, sizeof(struct mtd_partition), GFP_KERNEL); > > which was kind of the obvious implication, no?
I guess > unless there's a > reason kcalloc() wouldn't work here, this is pretty much what > kcalloc() was designed for. > When Denys brought up the zeroing thing and mentioned kzalloc() I did consider kcalloc() instead, but kzalloc() makes this allocation nicely look like the preceding ones visually and I couldn't convince myself that kcalloc() would give us any real benefit here. What exactely would using kcalloc() over kzalloc() here buy us? -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
