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

[David Harton (dharton)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 6:41 PM
> To: David Harton (dharton) <dharton at cisco.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at 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 at 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 at 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.

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