On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:05:40 +0200, Denis Vlasenko
<vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> wrote:
>On 14 March 2003 10:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> No that would just be another pointless exercise in causing more
>> annoyance for someone who has to look through patches finding that
>> one hunk that breaks stuff. The recent spelling changes come to mind.
>
>How we should do such global small cleanups?
>Maybe grep the source and bring the list of affected files
>to maintainers' attention, letting the to gradually push
>changes to Linus...
>
>I suspect "bring the list to maintainers' attention"
>will be a trickier part ;)
>
>> But just because you don't seem to have seen any kfree(NULL) in the
>> kernel does not mean they are not there. And should a good trend not
>> allow to grow?
>
>"if(p) free(p)" => "free(p)" is mostly ok, less code.
>
>But free is called now unconditionally. Make an exception
>for performance-critical places where p is almost always 0.
The one implementation I looked at carefully (SAS/C) looked like this:
free(p);
---------
if (p)
malloc(p);
so
if (p) free(p);
-------------
if (p)
if (p)
malloc(p);
which seems fairly worthless.
john
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:40 EST