[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237968111.30175.9.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:01:51 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > > This makes sense, since we now encourage developers to just call kfree
> > > without checking for NULL.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > But those are _error handling paths_ (at least supposed to be). I
> > wonder which call-sites are responsible for this. Can frtrace help us
> > here?
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 08:50 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Why is this an error handler. We replaced tons of
>
> if (obj)
> kfree(obj);
>
> constructs all over the kernel with kfree(obj); and let kfree deal
> with the NULL pointer.
We encourage developers not to check for kfree() in the common
out-of-memory error handling paths. But what Steven's results suggest is
that the common case is something like this:
void *p = NULL;
if (/* unlikely condition */)
p = kmalloc(...);
kfree(p);
which, quite frankly, doesn't make much sense to me. That's why I would
really want to know which call-sites are causing this before applying
the patch.
Pekka
--
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