[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Eli Carter wrote:

> > Not really needed, since a segfault will produce almost as much
> > information as a BUG_ON(). Certainly it will produce enough to let a
> > developer know that the pointer was NULL.
> Your first message said, "I see no reason for pure paranoia,
> particularly if it's not commented as such." A BUG_ON() call makes it
> clear that the condition should never happen. Dereferencing a NULL
> leaves the question of whether NULL is an unhandled case or invalid
> input. BUG_ON() is an explicit paranoia check, and with a bit of
> preprocessing magic, you could compile out all of those checks.
> So it documents invalid input conditions, allows you to eliminate the
> checks in the name of speed or your personal preference, or use them to
> help with debugging/testing.

Okay, that makes sense. Particularly the debugging and testing part. And
for an excellent example of _documented_ paranoia, see the source to

But if you look very far through the kernel sources you will see many
occurrences of code similar to this:

static void release(struct xxx *ptr)
if (!ptr)

I can't see any reason for keeping something like that.

Alan Stern

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.050 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site