* jamal <[email protected]> 2005-03-23 08:11
> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 07:55, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * jamal <[email protected]> 2005-03-23 07:40
>
> > > Just a small correction to patchlet:
> > > The second kfree should check for existence of t.
> >
> > t is either valid or NULL so it's not a problem, unless you want
> > to create janitor work of course. ;->
>
> if t is null you still goto rtattr_failure
> I have seen people put little comments of "kfree will work if you
> pass it NULL" - are you saying such assumptions exist all over
> net/sched?
kfree simply does nothing if it is given a null pointer so that
goto rtattr_failure for t == NULL is handled just fine without
a check. I will never get used to this behaviour and policy as
well though, it somewhat makes code less readable.
> didnt understand the janitor part.
It will probably be removed again by one of the regular 'remove
unnecessary pre kfree checks' patchsets.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
