Re: [PATCH v3] blkparse: Fix a potential coredump issue

From: Kou Wenqi <[email protected]>

On 3/19/25 7:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Nit picking, but the idiomatic way would be to make it calloc(size, 1)
> not the other way around. The first one is the size, the 2nd one is the
> number of them.

Thank you for reviewing the patch!
I wanted to double-check the calloc usage
to ensure alignment with the project's conventions. 
The man page defines calloc as:
void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size); 
where nmemb is the number of elements, and size is the size of each element.
In the submitted code, 
split = calloc(1, sizeof(*iot)) follows this order: nmemb=1 and size=sizeof(...). 
I also reviewed existing code in blktrace and saw consistent usage like calloc(1, size), 
which matches the man page’s parameter order.
Could you clarify if there’s a specific reason or project-specific idiom
for reversing the parameters (e.g., calloc(size, 1) instead)?
I’m happy to adjust it if there’s a stylistic preference or guideline I’ve overlooked.
Thanks again for your guidance!

-- 
Kou Wenqi