Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:43:20 -0800 (PST) | From | Amit Choudhary <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] include/linux/slab.h: new KFREE() macro. |
| |
--- Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:46:50AM -0800, Amit Choudhary wrote: > > Well, I am not proposing this as a debugging aid. The idea is about correct programming, > atleast > > from my view. Ideally, if you kfree(x), then you should set x to NULL. So, either programmers > do > > it themselves or a ready made macro do it for them. > > No, you should not. I suspect that's the basic point you're missing. > >
Any strong reason why not? x has some value that does not make sense and can create only problems. And as I explained, it can result in longer code too. So, why keep this value around. Why not re-initialize it to NULL.
If x should not be re-initialized to NULL, then by the same logic, we should not even initialize local variables. And all of us know that local variables should be initialized.
I would like to know a good reason as to why x should not be set to NULL.
-Amit
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.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/
| |