Re: [patch 1/7] slab: introduce kzfree()

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

2009/2/19 Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:50 +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> > > Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> > > > +void kzfree(const void *p)
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't this be void * since it writes to the memory?
>> >
>> > No. kfree() writes to the memory as well to update freelists, poisoning
>> > and such so kzfree() is not at all different from it.
>
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I don't think so. It's debetable thing.
>>
>> poisonig is transparent feature from caller.
>> but the caller of kzfree() know to fill memory and it should know.
>
> Debatable, sure, but doesn't seem like a big enough reason to make
> kzfree() differ from kfree().

Sure.
ok, I don't oppse this :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/