sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > From: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Avoid the more cpu expensive kzalloc when allocating buffers. > Originally kzalloc was intended for isolating the guest from > the host by not sending random guest data to the host. But device > isolation is not yet in place so kzalloc is not really needed. > > Signed-off-by: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> This looks fine to me. This is *why* the device gives us the length which was written; we can trust that, even if we can't trust the writer of data. (In theory: noone has implemented such a system, yet). Applied. Rusty. > diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > index c36b2f6..301d17e 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static struct port_buffer *alloc_buf(size_t buf_size) > buf = kmalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!buf) > goto fail; > - buf->buf = kzalloc(buf_size, GFP_KERNEL); > + buf->buf = kmalloc(buf_size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!buf->buf) > goto free_buf; > buf->len = 0; > -- > 1.7.5.4 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
