 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co?
| To: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co? |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:33:23 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:33:35 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
While I seem to recall that this idea was rejected a couple of years back, shouldn't we re-think and follow e.g. Linux in having zeroing variants of xmalloc() & Co? That would not only reduce code size, but also eliminate one source of potential bugs (see e.g. the thread starting at http://marc.info/?l=kernel-janitors&m=131615631720174&w=2). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/7] PCI multi-segment support, Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Resend: RE: enable_ats_device() call site, Jan Beulich |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 8986: tolerable FAIL, xen . org |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co?, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
