On 06/05/2007 01:09 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Here a version of the patch that drops the WARN_ONs
And now all that's done, how about yet another random person stepping in and suggesting NIL or maybe NIL_PTR instead of ZERO_SIZE_PTR?
I understand the idea is that code need not necesarily care about zero sized allocation meaning it won't (generally) need to spell it out but it's still a dreadful name... :-(
Rene. - 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: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- References:
- SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: "Pekka Enberg" <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] bugfix GFP_KERNEL -> GFP_ATOMIC in spin_locked region
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14
- Previous by thread: Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- Next by thread: Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- Index(es):
 |