From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751136AbWDVU2Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:28:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751153AbWDVU2Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:28:16 -0400 Received: from zeus1.kernel.org ([204.152.191.4]:50637 "EHLO zeus1.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751136AbWDVU2P convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:28:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ldxEjcuxZGdB81pAWKfLtscjKdJk8s6VmK+kaxGHsGHiClzYgb3yMNOBw5VHygtpLk7uF+0dE6M1R5ryQJ87B7M881J3yAinsXQSgpOvPNMdrTharjiwi5YhVYTk2ayop6Blo8ETHca2dzuuXoPeWTPRvgX4OM6YJimV0vbIr3Q= Message-ID: <9a8748490604220434u2af03f40j12410477f11ff3bb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:34:04 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Paul Mackerras" Subject: Re: kfree(NULL) Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "James Morris" , dwalker@mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <17481.28892.506618.865014@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200604210703.k3L73VZ6019794@dwalker1.mvista.com> <20060421015412.49a554fa.akpm@osdl.org> <17481.28892.506618.865014@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/22/06, Paul Mackerras 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 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