On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 11:48:46AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 11:42, Bruce Richardson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:41:44AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > Currently, the device object is only manipulated by the dma/idxd bus > > > callbacks and EAL is not looking too much into this object. > > > > > > However, in the next refactoring, EAL will expect a clean object, like > > > when checking that the device has been already probed > > > (iow dev->driver != NULL). > > > > > > Request a 0'd object when allocating. > > > > > > Reported-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/dma/idxd/idxd_bus.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > Out of interest, did you (or Claude :-) ) run a scan over the other bus > > drivers to see if any others are similarly not properly zeroed on init? > > I did check, the "legacy" way. > > All other are calling calloc(), or rte_zmalloc_*, or manually clearing. > I hesitated at changing the malloc+memset pattern to calloc, but I > left it for later. > The series is big enough. > Great, thanks for confirming. I also agree with your choice to not bother changing the patterns for this set.
/Bruce
