Amit Choudhary <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:46:50AM -0800, Amit Choudhary wrote:
>> > Well, I am not proposing this as a debugging aid. The idea is about correct
>> > programming,
>> atleast
>> > from my view. Ideally, if you kfree(x), then you should set x to NULL. So,
>> > either programmers
>> do
>> > it themselves or a ready made macro do it for them.
>>
>> No, you should not. I suspect that's the basic point you're missing.
> Any strong reason why not? x has some value that does not make sense and can
> create only problems. And as I explained, it can result in longer code too.
> So, why keep this value around. Why not re-initialize it to NULL.
1) Because some magic value like 0x23 would be better.
2) Because it hides bugs like double frees or dangeling references while
creating a race condition. In the end, you'll get more hard-to-find bugs
in exchange for papering over some easy-to-spot bugs.
> If x should not be re-initialized to NULL, then by the same logic, we should
> not even initialize local variables. And all of us know that local variables
> should be initialized.
That may hide bugs, too. Therefore this isn't done in the kernel unless you
intend to depend on an initial value.
--
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.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]
