Hi, 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? On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote: > 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 -- 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/