Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:45:22 +0200 (EET) | From | Pekka J Enberg <> | Subject | Re: Why is the kfree() argument const? |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > is there any reason why kfree() takes a const pointer just to degrade it > > with the call to slab_free()/__cache_free() again? The promise that the > > pointee is not modified is just bogus in this case, anyway, isn't it?
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The object is modified in various cases f.e. because of poisoning or the > need to store the free pointer. So its bogus, yes. Pekka?
Yeah, bogus, and has been that way for a long time according to git. I'm ok with removing that (which would make it consistent with the user-space equivalent free(3) function btw).
Pekka
| |