Hi,

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Johannes Weiner wrote:
quoted text
> > is there any reason why kfree() takes a const pointer just to degrade it
> > with the call to slab_free()/__cache_free() again?  The promise that the
> > pointee is not modified is just bogus in this case, anyway, isn't it?
 
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
quoted text
> The object is modified in various cases f.e. because of poisoning or the 
> need to store the free pointer. So its bogus, yes. Pekka?

Yeah, bogus, and has been that way for a long time according to git. I'm 
ok with removing that (which would make it consistent with the user-space 
equivalent free(3) function btw).

			Pekka
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/