[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1409101725340.5523@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:28:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/sl[aou]b: make kfree() aware of error pointers
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > BTW if we stretch this argument a little bit more, we should also kill the
> > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() check from kfree() and make it callers responsibility
> > to perform the checking only if applicable ... we are currently doing a
> > lot of pointless checking in cases where caller would be able to guarantee
> > that the pointer is going to be non-NULL.
>
> What you're saying is that we should remove the ZERO_SIZE_PTR
> completely. ZERO_SIZE_PTR is a very useful idiom and also it's too late
> to remove it because everything depends on it.
I was just argumenting that if we care about single additional test in
this path, the ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() should have never been added at the
first place, and the responsibility for checking should have been kept at
callers.
Too late for this now, yes.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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