Re: kfree(NULL)

[Jesper Juhl]

On 4/22/06, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/