Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201026122728.8522-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20201026131427.GF4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=MfuejMqpcfOedPMMTR3EY6s2K+4whoWyk7RmJYPaB176w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201030105706.GK4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201030105834.GL4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMpxmJWxsNY_Eepq2fx0diDr96prBZKGtyb2j43PLe4_vGZAwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJWxsNY_Eepq2fx0diDr96prBZKGtyb2j43PLe4_vGZAwA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:21:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJV43KqQEdY1MfgsXn_uvNqewDGZJkPXDU+0jOkG=2wTbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devres: zero the memory in devm_krealloc() if needed
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
<bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > >
> > > > Any use case? Because to me it sounds contradictory to the whole idea of [k]realloc().
> > >
> > > This is kind of a gray area in original krealloc() too and I want to
> > > submit a patch for mm too. Right now krealloc ignores the __GFP_ZERO
> > > flag if new_size <= old_size but zeroes the memory if new_size >
> > > old_size.
> >
> > > This should be consistent - either ignore __GFP_ZERO or
> > > don't ignore it in both cases. I think that not ignoring it is better
> > > - if user passes it then it's for a reason.
> >
> > Sorry, but I consider in these two choices the best is the former one, i.e.
> > ignoring, because non-ignoring for sizes less than current is counter the
> > REalloc() by definition.
> >
> > Reading realloc(3):
> >
> > "If the new size is larger than the old size, the added memory will not be
> > initialized."
> >
> > So, supports my choice over yours.
>
> Kernel memory management API is not really orthogonal to the one in
> user-space. For example: kmalloc() takes the gfp parameter and if you
> pass __GFP_ZERO to it, it zeroes the memory even if user-space
> malloc() never does.
>

Ok so I was wrong - it turns out that krealloc() is consistent in
ignoring __GFP_ZERO after all. In that case this patch can be dropped.

Bartosz