Message-ID: <1381340983.2050.17.camel@joe-AO722>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] device: Add kernel standard devm_k.alloc functions
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sangjung Woo <sangjung.woo@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:49:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20131009163053.GF22495@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <1381296747.2040.17.camel@joe-AO722>
	 <20131009054335.GA3525@kroah.com> <1381299404.2040.19.camel@joe-AO722>
	 <20131009065404.GA7005@kroah.com> <1381302282.2050.1.camel@joe-AO722>
	 <20131009163053.GF22495@htj.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1184
Lines: 30

On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 12:30 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:04:42AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > 	devm_kzalloc
> > > > > > 	devm_kcalloc
> > > > > > 	devm_kmalloc_array
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Add gfp.h to device.h for the newly added static inlines.
> ...
> > Unless Tejun has an objection soon, yes.
> 
> Do we really need devm_kmalloc_array() for devm interface?  The
> reasonsing behind only having kzalloc was that it's not worthwhile
> skipping zeroing for stuff happening during driver init/exit paths.
> The resource management overhead itself is already significant and
> unscalable compared to the raw cost of alloc/free and the interface
> isn't supposed to be used in super-hot paths.  Shouldn't
> devm_kzalloc() and devm_kcalloc() be enough?

I think API symmetry is a good thing and I think
that API dissymmetry is not a good thing when the
creation and support cost is very low.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/