On 4/22/06, Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > Yes, kfree(NULL) is supposed to be uncommon. If someone's doing it a lot
> > then we should fix up the callers.
>
> Well, we'd have to start by fixing up the janitors that run around
> taking out the if statements in the callers. :)
>
I think there was pretty good agreement, when we started doing that,
that taking out the if statements in the callers was a good idea.
If it turns out to have been a net loss that's not good, but I don't
think it's been a wasted effort - there were a *lot* of places that
checked for NULL before calling [kv]free, and now that we've gotten
rid of them we can consider adding them back where it makes sense, not
just all over the place.
We could also consider changing the
if (unlikely(!obj))
return;
in kfree into simply
if (!obj)
return;
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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]
