On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > An allocation of zero bytes usually indicates that the code is not dealing
> > with a special case. Later code may operate on the allocated object. I
> > think its clearer and cleaner if code would deal with that special case
> > explicitly. We have seen a series of code pieces that do uncomfortably
> > looking operations on structures with no objects.
> >
>
> I disagree. There are plenty of boundary conditions where 0 is not
> really a special case, and making it a special case just complicates
> things. I think at least some of the patches posted to silence this
> warning have been generally negative for code quality. If we were
> seeing lots of zero-sized allocations then that might indicate something
> is amiss, but it seems to me that there's just a scattered handful.
>
> I agree that it's always a useful debugging aid to make sure that
> allocated regions are not over-run, but 0-sized allocations are not
> special in this regard.
Still insisting on it even after the discovery of the cpuset kmalloc(0) issue?
-
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]
