[PATCH v2 3/8] x86/oprofile: avoid effectively open-coding xmalloc_array()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

There is a difference in generated code: xmalloc_bytes() forces
SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. But if code really cared about such higher
than default alignment, it should request so explicitly rather than
using a type-unsafe interface. And if e.g. cache line sharing was a
concern, the allocator itself should arrange to avoid such.

While at it also use XFREE() instead of open-coding it and change loop
induction variable types.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
@@ -142,30 +142,29 @@ static void nmi_save_registers(void * du
 
 static void free_msrs(void)
 {
-	int i;
+	unsigned int i;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < nr_cpu_ids; ++i) {
-		xfree(cpu_msrs[i].counters);
-		cpu_msrs[i].counters = NULL;
-		xfree(cpu_msrs[i].controls);
-		cpu_msrs[i].controls = NULL;
+		XFREE(cpu_msrs[i].counters);
+		XFREE(cpu_msrs[i].controls);
 	}
 }
 
 
 static int allocate_msrs(void)
 {
+	unsigned int i;
 	int success = 1;
-	size_t controls_size = sizeof(struct op_msr) * model->num_controls;
-	size_t counters_size = sizeof(struct op_msr) * model->num_counters;
 
-	int i;
 	for_each_online_cpu (i) {
-		cpu_msrs[i].counters = xmalloc_bytes(counters_size);
+		cpu_msrs[i].counters = xmalloc_array(struct op_msr,
+						     model->num_counters);
 		if (!cpu_msrs[i].counters) {
 			success = 0;
 			break;
 		}
-		cpu_msrs[i].controls = xmalloc_bytes(controls_size);
+		cpu_msrs[i].controls = xmalloc_array(struct op_msr,
+						     model->num_controls);
 		if (!cpu_msrs[i].controls) {
 			success = 0;
 			break;