Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760193AbXFBCVu (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:21:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751933AbXFBCVn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:21:43 -0400 Received: from hammerhead.shentel.net ([204.111.1.228]:42524 "EHLO hammerhead.shentel.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786AbXFBCVn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:21:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." To: Christoph Lameter cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 987 Lines: 20 > > > + * The behavior for zero sized allocs changes. We no longer > > > + * allocate memory but return ZERO_SIZE_PTR. > > > + * WARN so that people can review and fix their code. > > > > I don't see why people have so much opposition to zero-size memory > > allocations. There's all sorts of situations where you want a resizeable > > array that may have zero objects, especially in these days of > > hotpluggability. > > In case you have not read the description to the end: This patch does > exactly what you want and legitimizes zero size object use. The warning > will be remove before 2.6.22 is released. Ah, sorry then. I just saw this, and remembered a rather contrary discussion about it quite a time ago. Excellent then. - 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/