From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:46:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:46:07 -0500 Received: from daimi.au.dk ([130.225.16.1]:22159 "EHLO daimi.au.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:46:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E4A2824.5D915F9F@daimi.au.dk> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:55:32 +0100 From: Kasper Dupont Organization: daimi.au.dk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-19.7.xsmp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olaf Titz CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Setjmp/Longjmp in the kernel? References: <20030209221044.GA8761@morningstar.nowhere.lie> <1044882041.418.1.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Olaf Titz wrote: > > Not that this matters any bit, but the proper order is of course > alloc this > alloc that > _foo_func() > free that > free this > > even if only for aesthetical reasons :-) > > (with locks, it does matter...) For locks it is only when you lock the order matters, not when you unlock. For allocations there is of course the possibility that the first allocation suceeds and the second fails, which you must handle in some way. -- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet. For sending spam use mailto:aaarep@daimi.au.dk for(_=52;_;(_%5)||(_/=5),(_%5)&&(_-=2))putchar(_);