[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708180300490.3666@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:02:14 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kfree(0) - ok?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > are we seeing a pattern here? We could stick the unlikely inside
> > > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() itself. That's a little bit sleazy though - there might
> > > be future callsites at which it is likely, who knows?
> >
> > Thought about that myself but then there would be a weird side effect to
> > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR().
>
> True, but I suspect such a side-effect to actually matter only for the
> BUG_ON case, where introducing the unlikely() would mean the output from
> the show_registers() dump during the BUG() would show a not-useful-at-all
> %%eax == 0x0000001 value, but only if CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY=y, admittedly.
Hang on, BUG_ON() already uses unlikely anyway. And I've just verified
from a testcase that gcc doesn't get confused by unlikely(unlikely(...))
kind of code, so we're in the clear, I think.
-
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