On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
>
Sorry to bring this up again but, take a look at the patch by
[email protected] titled "[PATCH] aoe 5/12: don't try to free null
bufpool" http://grmso.net:8090/commit/03347936afcba990525736ae39daa13f643eac5f/diff/fa83c2ddd4293bd8bcaeeaf14bfdbf2fbe810420/
That's exactely the reason why the patch I submitted should be applied, to
avoid having to do such checks all over the place in other code and
instead just do it in one location. With this patch in place, the patch to
aoedev.c would not have been needed.
Or am I still misunderstanding something.
--
Jesper
-
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]
