--- Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:46:50AM -0800, Amit Choudhary wrote: > > Well, I am not proposing this as a debugging aid. The idea is about correct > > programming, > atleast > > from my view. Ideally, if you kfree(x), then you should set x to NULL. So, > > either programmers > do > > it themselves or a ready made macro do it for them. > > No, you should not. I suspect that's the basic point you're missing. > >
Any strong reason why not? x has some value that does not make sense and can create only problems. And as I explained, it can result in longer code too. So, why keep this value around. Why not re-initialize it to NULL. If x should not be re-initialized to NULL, then by the same logic, we should not even initialize local variables. And all of us know that local variables should be initialized. I would like to know a good reason as to why x should not be set to NULL. -Amit __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
