On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:49:46 -0500
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:08:03AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> >
> > > This changes kmem_cache_free() to deal with NULL objects passed to it.
> > > The
> > > current behavior is inconsistent with kfree() so there are callers
> > > passing NULL to kmem_cache_free().
> >
> > Hmmm.. kmem_cache_free is significantly different. One also needs to
> > specify the slab cache.
>
> I think this sort of thing should work:
>
> a = kmalloc(...)
> b = kmem_cache_alloc(..)
> c = allocate_some_id(...)
> if (!a || !b || !c) {
> free_some_id(c)
> kmem_cache_free(c)
> kfree(a);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
Would prefer to do:
static inline void kmem_cache_free_if_not_null(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
void *objp)
{
if (objp)
kmem_cache_free(cachep, objp);
}
so that we don't add extra overhead to all the thousands of existing,
well-behaved callsites.
-
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/
