On Sunday 26 August 2007 01:23, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > On 26/08/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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? > > technically, nothing.
The idea of calloc is that it can check for underflow in parameter. calloc(-1, 10000000) => easy to detect malloc(-1 * 10000000) => malloc(-10000000) => not so trivial -- vda - 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/
