> > 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... :-( The name says exactly what it is. It's not at all dreadful. If we're going to return a special value in the zero-size case (and in only that case) as a valid pointer instead of actually allocating one byte and treating it as zero, what we have is...a zero-size pointer. ZERO_SIZE_PTR is a pretty damn good name. - 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: Rene Herman <[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]>
- Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- From: Rene Herman <[email protected]>
- SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
- Prev by Date: RE: 2.6.22-rc: regression: no irda0 interface (2.6.21 was OK), smsc does not find chip
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] containers: implement nsproxy containers subsystem
- 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):