Messages in this thread | | | From | Måns Rullgård <> | Subject | Re: Assuming NULL | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:49:16 +0200 |
| |
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:
> Hi developers, > > some places in fs/*.c have conditions like > > (namei.c, 238, in "int permission()"): > if(inode->i_op && inode->i_op->permission) > > Others just have > (namei.c, 813, in "int fastcall link_path_walk()"): > if(!inode->i_op->lookup) > > My question is: Which one is right wrt the case "i_op ==/!= NULL"? > There are two ways: > > - the kernel assumes i_op (and similar) is always non-NULL > => then we can remove a lot of checks, like the first example above > > - the kernel does not assume... > => then we need some extra checks, like in the second example above
And a third:
- in some places it's safe to assume non-NULL, but not always => then we need to check only the unsafe places
-- Måns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |