@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ int efi_runtime_call(struct xenpf_efi_ru
size = op->u.get_variable.size;
if ( size )
{
- data = xmalloc_bytes(size);
+ data = xmalloc_array(unsigned char, size);
if ( !data )
{
xfree(name);
@@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ int efi_runtime_call(struct xenpf_efi_ru
return -EIO;
}
- data = xmalloc_bytes(op->u.set_variable.size);
+ data = xmalloc_array(unsigned char, op->u.set_variable.size);
if ( !data )
rc = -ENOMEM;
else if ( copy_from_guest(data, op->u.set_variable.data,
@@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ int efi_runtime_call(struct xenpf_efi_ru
return -EINVAL;
size = op->u.get_next_variable_name.size;
- name.raw = xzalloc_bytes(size);
+ name.raw = xzalloc_array(unsigned char, size);
if ( !name.raw )
return -ENOMEM;
if ( copy_from_guest(name.raw, op->u.get_next_variable_name.name,
There is a difference in generated code: xmalloc_bytes() forces SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. I think we not only don't need this here, but actually don't want it. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>