* jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-03-23 08:11 > On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 07:55, Thomas Graf wrote: > > * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-03-23 07:40 > > > > Just a small correction to patchlet: > > > The second kfree should check for existence of t. > > > > t is either valid or NULL so it's not a problem, unless you want > > to create janitor work of course. ;-> > > if t is null you still goto rtattr_failure > I have seen people put little comments of "kfree will work if you > pass it NULL" - are you saying such assumptions exist all over > net/sched?
kfree simply does nothing if it is given a null pointer so that goto rtattr_failure for t == NULL is handled just fine without a check. I will never get used to this behaviour and policy as well though, it somewhat makes code less readable. > didnt understand the janitor part. It will probably be removed again by one of the regular 'remove unnecessary pre kfree checks' patchsets. - 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/
