Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.

Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 
> General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources 
> should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will 
> currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe 
> to pass it NULL.

The best response to mempool_destroy(0) is an oops.  There's no legitimate
reason for doing it.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Kernel SCM saga..
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
• Previous by thread: const qualifiers on function returns type
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]