From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joonwoo Park" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] atm/ambassador: kmalloc + memset conversion to kzalloc Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:53:19 +0900 Message-ID: References: <007f01c8300b$1b89ac40$9c94fea9@jason> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Robert P. J. Day" Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]:64078 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752396AbXKZKxT (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:53:19 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so482218rvb for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:53:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 2007/11/26, Robert P. J. Day : > i realized that. but all you can say is that only amb_init() calls > setup_dev() *currently*. when you're not looking, someone else might > (for whatever reason) call setup_dev() from elsewhere, and *that* call > might not zero that memory area. > > IMHO, the only safe transforms of kmalloc+memset -> kzalloc are those > in which the flow of control is unmistakable and invariant. splitting > that across a function call seems like a dangerous thing to do. > (except, of course, in the case, where the kzalloc() is added inside > the function -- then all callers are entitled to simplify *their* > code. but that's different.) > > in any event, i just thought i'd point it out. if you're absolutely > sure there will never be another call to setup_dev() from somewhere > else, then, yes, it's safe. > I understood your opinions. and partially agree with you. But isn't it a unfounded fear? Thanks Joonwoo