![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-22 19:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||