Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:25:41 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: kfree(NULL) |
| |
Hua Zhong wrote: >>It can reduce readability of the code [unless it is used in >>error path simplification, kfree(something) usually suggests >>kfree-an-object]. > > > Consistency in coding style improves readability. Redundancy reduces readability. > > The interface is simple and clear, and has been documented for decades, that is kfree (and free) accepts NULL. There is no ambiguity > here. > > If you think "if (obj) kfree (obj);" is more readable than "kfree(obj);", fix the API to enforce it. > > But if the kernel tree is full of "some caller checks NULL while others not", I hardly see it as readable. It'd just be confusing. > > >>I don't actually like kfree(NULL) any time except error >>paths. It is subjective, not crazy talk. > > > Documented interface is not subjective.
That's great. I don't know quite how to reply, or even if I should if you don't read what I write.
-- 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/
| |