Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:05:41 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: kfree(NULL) |
| |
Hua Zhong wrote: > > There is a judgement to be made at each call site of kfree > >>(and similar functions) about whether the argument is rarely >>NULL, or could often be NULL. If the janitors have been >>making this judgement, I apologise, but I haven't seen them >>doing that. >> >>Paul. > > > Even if the caller passes NULL most of the time, the check should be removed. > > It's just crazy talk to say "you should not check NULL before calling kfree, as long as you make sure it's not NULL most of the > time".
It can reduce readability of the code [unless it is used in error path simplification, kfree(something) usually suggests kfree-an-object].
If the caller passes NULL most of the time, it could be in need of redesign.
I don't actually like kfree(NULL) any time except error paths. It is subjective, not crazy talk.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.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/
| |