![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
(Please don't trim the cc list when replying.)
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > The rationale for this is that since NULL is not guaranteed to be zero
> > by the C standard
On 6/29/05, Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> wrote:
> ... as opposed to the other 632719 places in the kernel source where
> we do the exact same thing?
Well, as silly as it sounds to you, that _was_ the rationale for NTFS.
I actually like it better than using kcalloc() but at the end of the
day, I care more that the kernel uses same idioms all over. Makes the
code easier to understand for my tiny brain...
P.S. Those 632719 places can be fixed too with a handful of persistent
kernel janitors ;)
Pekka
-
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: 2005-06-29 08:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||