On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:04:24AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > > > Memalign from <malloc.h> was marked obsolete in favor of a posix > > > variant from <stdlib.h>. So replace all calls and remove <malloc.h> > > > includes. This also enhances support on other posix platforms, > > > which doesn't have <malloc.h>. > > > > > > Because posix_memalign returns any error as a return code, not in > > > errno, change relevant checks in code (and add a missing one). > > > > I have to say I hate the posix_memalign calling convention. Any chance > > you could just provide a memalign impementation using posix_memalign for > > MacOS? > > > > I thought about it. However, with memalign from malloc marked obsolete > (and with posix_memalign having guaranteed alignment restrictions [1]), I > saw it better > to use the posix variant everywhere. Putting a sane wrapper around an nasty library function is just fine. The memalign wrapper makes sense from this perspective - even gcc can't tell if variables passed to posix_memalign are correctly initialised or not, whereas no such problems exist for memalign(). > I could make a wrapper simulating the old memalign behaviour, but I don't > think it would make sense. I think it makes more sense than using posix_memalign() everywhere and then ignoring the return variable that tells you it failed... > I searched for this, but didn't find any reasonable answer: > How long can be things in standard libraries marked obsolete before > removing? With a wrapper, we don't care. > [1] man memalign: > On many systems there are alignment restrictions, for example, on buf- > fers used for direct block device I/O. POSIX specifies the path- > conf(path,_PC_REC_XFER_ALIGN) call that tells what alignment is needed. > Now one can use posix_memalign() to satisfy this requirement. > > posix_memalign() verifies that alignment matches the requirements > detailed above. memalign() may not check that the alignment argument > is correct. Yes, you can get it wrong with memalign. But we don't, because we follow the rules for DIO buffer alignment and set it correctly. Being able to directly control the alignment of the memory buffer is a reason for using memalign() over posix_memalign(), not the other way around. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
