Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix rte_zalloc_socket to zero memory

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

> On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:24 PM, David Harton <dharton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> The zalloc and calloc functions do not actually zero the memory.
> Added memset to rte_zmalloc_socket() so allocated memory is cleared.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Harton <dharton@cisco.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
> index 0da5ad5e8..be382e534 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
> @@ -74,7 +74,9 @@ rte_malloc(const char *type, size_t size, unsigned align)
> void *
> rte_zmalloc_socket(const char *type, size_t size, unsigned align, int socket)
> {
> -	return rte_malloc_socket(type, size, align, socket);
> +	void *new_ptr = rte_malloc_socket(type, size, align, socket);
> +	if (new_ptr) memset(new_ptr, 0, size);

Someone will hate me, but the memset() line should be on the next line not on the ‘if’ line. It does not explicitly state in the coding style, but do not see any example in the coding style on having the one line statement on the line of the ‘if’.

What is the ruling here, I would suggest it be on the next line?

> +	return new_ptr;
> }
> 
> /*
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 

Regards,
Keith