On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:53 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> > After having written that, I actually tend to prefer grub_zalloc().
> After having read this I agree with you
Committed with grub_zalloc().
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
___
Grub
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:22 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> > Even though it's a new function added to the core, its use makes
>> > core.img smaller. And it makes modules s
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:22 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Even though it's a new function added to the core, its use makes
> > core.img smaller. And it makes modules smaller too.
> I like the idea even if function name is ine
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Even though it's a new function added to the core, its use makes
> core.img smaller. And it makes modules smaller too.
I like the idea even if function name is inexplicit. Do you have a
better alterative?
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * kern/mm.c
Even though it's a new function added to the core, its use makes
core.img smaller. And it makes modules smaller too.
ChangeLog:
* kern/mm.c (grub_malloc0): New function.
(grub_debug_malloc0): Likewise.
* include/grub/mm.h: Declare grub_malloc0() and
grub_debug_mal
