On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Johannes Weiner wrote: > 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?
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? -- 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/
