On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:00, Yin Kangkai <kangkai.yin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-08-02, 11:00 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 05:43, Yin Kangkai <kangkai.yin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From fd81bea16d3e1e93aebc8cb80ec16ae9c20c6e41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Yin Kangkai <kangkai.yin@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:22:49 +0800 >> > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] malloc -> calloc and fix some memory leaks. >> > >> > calloc so that we do not need to memset each of them. >> >> Any reason to change things to calloc() where no memset() is done or needed? > > I changed the malloc and memset pair of udev_rules allocation, and for > consistence, I finished the others :) > > Maybe it's only my personal taste that I like to memset memory once I > malloc success. If this is not necessary, I can split the patch. Nah, I mean memset(), and calloc() is only necessary if the memory is read, and not always overwritten anyway by the next operation, like read() or similar. I don't think that needs to be 'fixed'. Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
