Re: kfree(0) - ok?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>, linux kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>
Date: Friday, August 17, 2007 - 5:13 pm

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:


Hmm, I didn't know ksize(NULL) was also allowed to succeed (and
return 0).

<checking around>

Oh yes, of course. We want krealloc(NULL) cases to behave
consistently as expected, and letting ksize(NULL) return 0 means
the code for krealloc() can lose an extra "if (!p)" check that
would otherwise have been required. Cool.



Well, all the above callsites genuinely appear to benefit from unlikely.
And it's unlikely (English word, this here :-) ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR would grow
callsites outside of mm/ especially considering the implementation
(or even the knowledge) of the ZERO_SIZE_PTR concept is something we'd
ideally want to abstract away from other generic callsites, I imagine.


Satyam
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
kfree(0) - ok?, Tim Bird, (Tue Aug 14, 6:59 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Aug 14, 7:13 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Aug 14, 6:55 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Aug 14, 7:42 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Andrew Morton, (Fri Aug 17, 2:22 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:13 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 5:14 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:46 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Aug 17, 5:42 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Thomas Gleixner, (Fri Aug 17, 7:40 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Aug 18, 4:21 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Pekka Enberg, (Sat Aug 18, 4:10 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 9:03 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 8:02 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 7:22 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 4:43 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:17 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:32 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Aug 17, 2:37 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Aug 17, 2:31 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 2:50 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Aug 14, 8:19 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Tue Aug 14, 7:21 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 3:28 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Wed Aug 15, 5:32 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Andreas Schwab, (Wed Aug 15, 5:18 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Wed Aug 15, 4:52 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 4:37 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 5:20 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 5:58 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 6:20 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Aug 15, 12:01 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 15, 9:58 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 10:06 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 15, 10:34 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 6:27 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Wed Aug 15, 5:43 am)