On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 09:04 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 07:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >> don't try to free null bufpool
> >
> > in linux there is a "rule" that all memory free routines are supposed to
> > also accept NULL as argument, so I think this patch is not needed (and
> > even wrong)
> >
>
> Hmm. The mm/mempool.c:mempool_destroy function immediately
> dereferences the pointer passed to it:
>
> void mempool_destroy(mempool_t *pool)
> {
> if (pool->curr_nr != pool->min_nr)
> BUG(); /* There were outstanding elements */
> free_pool(pool);
> }
>
> ... so I'm not sure mempool_destroy fits the rule. Are you suggesting
> that the patch should instead modify mempool_destroy?
hmm perhaps... Jens?
-
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]
