lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Assuming NULL
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-11 18:54    [W:0.038 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site