WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co?

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co?
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:41:29 -0700
Cc:
Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:42:46 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xZqgtKx2m2gXuwNiNpyfe9lx2bAXBTh99Cmuo6z1Dns=; b=SvoGbBEQv53iYDN7CWpkob91qfLKY5lo+P/ABavtfWKy50zn2AVPnWy+Zuux2kVZGU vpwct3kAZF192ZV4or10oei2MssWL/G0dDmLU4tdV6fupwUH+I8/dSV1VcTeaP1yszSX IZ3RnXUA8gk2eeCbLzTNbo+Ijg+uFzMfmTVBA=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E79AF630200007800056F80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
Thread-index: Acx4ZCph/k8TWpEMbEqDcjkvTnTLIg==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] xzalloc() & Co?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
On 21/09/2011 00:33, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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).

I don't know why we'd have rejected the idea. It sounds fine to me.

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>