* Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:14:12PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Most of the calls to this initialization function apply it on zeroed > > memory (static/kzalloc'd...), which makes it useless. I'd actually be in > > favor of removing those redundant calls (as I pointed out in another > > email), and document that zeroed memory don't need to be explicitly > > initialized. > > > > Those sites that need to really reinitialize memory, or initialize it > > (if located on the stack or in non-zeroed dynamically allocated memory) > > could use a memset to 0, which will likely be faster than setting to > > NULL on many architectures. > > I don't think it's a good idea to optimize out the basic encapsulation > there. We're talking about re-zeroing some static memory areas which > are pretty small. It's just not worth optimizing out at the cost of > proper initializtion. e.g. We might add debug fields to list_head > later. Future-proofness for debugging fields is indeed a very compelling argument. Fair enough! We might want to document this intent at the top of the initialization function though, just in case anyone want to short-circuit it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>