On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> Hi Jesper,
>
> > kfree() handles NULL pointers, so checking a pointer for NULL before
> > calling kfree() on it is pointless.
>
> Not necessarily. It helps tell the reader that the pointer may be NULL
> at that point. This has come up before.
>
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/bd3d6e5a29e43c73/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
I agree that
if (foo->bar) {
kfree(foo->bar);
foo->bar = NULL;
}
makes it easy to see that foo->bar might be NULL, but I think the
advantages of simply
kfree(foo->bar);
foo->bar = NULL;
outweigh that.
Having to remember that kfree(NULL) is valid shouldn't be hard, people
should be used to that from userspace code calling free(), and if there
are places where it's important to remember that the pointer might be
NULL, then a simple comment would do, wouldn't it?
kfree(foo->bar); /* kfree(NULL) is valid */
the short version also have the real bennefits of generating shorter and
faster code as well as being shorter "on-screen".
--
Jesper Juhl
-
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/
