Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:34:04 +0200 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: kfree(NULL) |
| |
On 4/22/06, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote: > Andrew Morton writes: > > > Yes, kfree(NULL) is supposed to be uncommon. If someone's doing it a lot > > then we should fix up the callers. > > Well, we'd have to start by fixing up the janitors that run around > taking out the if statements in the callers. :) > I think there was pretty good agreement, when we started doing that, that taking out the if statements in the callers was a good idea. If it turns out to have been a net loss that's not good, but I don't think it's been a wasted effort - there were a *lot* of places that checked for NULL before calling [kv]free, and now that we've gotten rid of them we can consider adding them back where it makes sense, not just all over the place. We could also consider changing the if (unlikely(!obj)) return; in kfree into simply if (!obj) return;
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |