[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <4664B076.5000406@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:38:14 -0600
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
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
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> I'm on Christoph's side here. I don't think it makes sense for any code
> to ask to allocate zero bytes of memory and expect valid memory to be
> returned.
>
> Would a compromise be to return a pointer to some known invalid region?
> This way the kmalloc(0) call would appear successful to the caller, but
> any access to the memory would result in an exception.
I would think returning 1 as the address would work here, it's not NULL
but any access to that page should still oops..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@...pamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
-
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