[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adalkn7j2th.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:25:30 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Amit Choudhary <amit2030@...oo.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hopefully, kmalloc() will always succeed, but if it doesn't then....
> struct mixart_enum_connector_resp *connector;
> struct mixart_audio_info_req *audio_info_req;
> struct mixart_audio_info_resp *audio_info;
>
> connector = kmalloc(sizeof(*connector), GFP_KERNEL);
> audio_info_req = kmalloc(sizeof(*audio_info_req), GFP_KERNEL);
> audio_info = kmalloc(sizeof(*audio_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (! connector || ! audio_info_req || ! audio_info) {
> err = -ENOMEM;
> goto __error;
> }
This is not a bug. All of the pointers are initialized, and if
kmalloc() fails, then one of them will be set to NULL. However,
kfree(NULL) is a perfectly fine thing to do (kfree just returns
immediately in this case).
So this is just a way of saving some tests and optimizing for the
common case when all allocations succeed. In other words, this is
good code -- although the spacing is slightly bogus: it should be
if (!connector || !audio_info_req || !audio_info) {
and also using __error as a label is slightly silly -- why not just
make it "error"?
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists