[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: kfree(NULL)
> 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

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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-22 21:24    [W:0.059 / U:2.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site