[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706011357290.4664@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > An allocation of zero bytes usually indicates that the code is not dealing
> > with a special case. Later code may operate on the allocated object. I
> > think its clearer and cleaner if code would deal with that special case
> > explicitly. We have seen a series of code pieces that do uncomfortably
> > looking operations on structures with no objects.
> >
>
> I disagree. There are plenty of boundary conditions where 0 is not
> really a special case, and making it a special case just complicates
> things. I think at least some of the patches posted to silence this
> warning have been generally negative for code quality. If we were
> seeing lots of zero-sized allocations then that might indicate something
> is amiss, but it seems to me that there's just a scattered handful.
>
> I agree that it's always a useful debugging aid to make sure that
> allocated regions are not over-run, but 0-sized allocations are not
> special in this regard.
Still insisting on it even after the discovery of the cpuset kmalloc(0) issue?
-
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