----- Original Message ----- > From: "SF Markus Elfring" <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx>, "walter harms" <wharms@xxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Christian Bornträger" <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Cornelia Huck" > <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David Hildenbrand" <dahi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Heiko Carstens" > <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>, > "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:10:13 PM > Subject: Re: Replacing specific kmalloc() calls by kmalloc_array()? > > > Or kmalloc_array, since zeroing is not necessary. Might be an idea for > > a new Coccinelle script, like > > > > - kmalloc (N * sizeof T, GFP) > > + kmalloc_array(N, sizeof T, GFP) > > I have picked your idea up. The corresponding script for the semantic > patch language became longer than your general suggestion > (if additional source code control flow aspects are integrated). > > Would it make sense to check any more function combinations > in a similar way? I don't know :) but I'm interested in seeing the semantic patch! Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
