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

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

fix up my emailer issue, sending out in non-plain text. :-(

> On Dec 7, 2018, at 4:47 PM, David Harton (dharton) <dharton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 6:41 PM
>> To: David Harton (dharton) <dharton@cisco.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix rte_zalloc_socket to zero memory
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> FWIW, I copied the pattern from rte_free() but I it is the only use in the file.
> 
> I have no problems changing it and fixing rte_free() too if that is the desire.
> 

Let's wait for the big guns to decide what is the correct method and updated the coding style.

This also points to a problem as we need a tool to run and fix up the code, like uncrustify or similar tool, this way I can stop being the code style police :-)

>> 
>>> +	return new_ptr;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> /*
>>> --
>>> 2.19.1
>>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Keith
> 

Regards,
Keith