From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:51:12 +1100
Subject: [U-Boot] Commit ecee9... (Program net device MAC addresses
 after initializing) breakage
In-Reply-To: <201011122011.43105.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <4CD5D2F4.5020102@gmail.com> <201011092236.41161.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<4CDD1D3B.1080703@gmail.com> <201011122011.43105.vapier@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <4CDDEF10.1030908@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 13/11/10 12:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2010 05:55:55 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On 10/11/10 14:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 06, 2010 18:13:08 Graeme Russ wrote:
>>>> I saw discussion a little while ago regarding implementing a version of
>>>> malloc that returns cleared memory - did this gain any traction?
>>>
>>> i dont think anyone posted a patch.  it would make sense though to
>>> generalize the zalloc() code since some places are already doing it.
>>
>> Actually, I think we should be using calloc() more than we are
> 
> if we want to define zalloc() to calloc(), then sure.  but forcing people to 
> use calloc() with a size=1 is silly.  the API is not nearly as obvious to 
> passing observers as zalloc().

Hmm, U-Boot has a zalloc in lib/gunzip.c which does not zero memory

void *zalloc(void *x, unsigned items, unsigned size)
{
	void *p;

	size *= items;
	size = (size + ZALLOC_ALIGNMENT - 1) & ~(ZALLOC_ALIGNMENT - 1);

	p = malloc (size);

	return (p);
}

and mtd has kzalloc defined thus:

#define kzalloc(size, flags)	calloc(size, 1)

So there is some confusion surrounding 'zalloc' anyway ;)

Regards,

Graeme