Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:30:35 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: Assuming NULL |
| |
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 06:24:22PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > 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
i_op must not be NULL .alloc_inode() intitializes it to &empty_iops, and setting it to NULL would be a bug.
- 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/
| |