Hi Luiz, Yes. Although bt_malloc internally uses malloc, there are a couple of places where bt_malloc is used instead of malloc. I was sticking to the convention of replacing malloc with malloc0 and bt_malloc with btmalloc0. I am not sure about any underlying reason for using malloc vs bt_malloc. If you think that bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 is the right way to go? I can go ahead and replace all occurrences of malloc/malloc0 with bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 respectively. Please do let me know. Btw, all the tests seem to pass when I did the replacement. -Best, Aravind On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 2:49 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Aravind, > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aravind Machiry <machiry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Gentle reminder! > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:30 PM <bluez.test.bot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=356715 > > > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckPatch - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckGitLint - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckBuild - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: MakeCheck - PASS > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Regards, > > > Linux Bluetooth > > There seems to be a mixture of malloc0 or bt_malloc0 when I guess the > later should be preferred. > > > > -- > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
