> There is an old saying in software design:
>
> "Never check for an error condition that you do not know how
> to handle."
>
> In other words: if you have identified a possible error
> condition (such as a NULL pointer), until you have identified a way to
meaningfully
> handle that error condition, simply testing for it is useless.
> Now, if you have some function that can return an error code, then
> testing for NULL and returning an error condition is sensible. But if
> you have no way to report the error, then what good is the test?
Not always true. In some cases you know how to handle: just return
without doing anyting.
man 3 free
It's an example that passing a NULL is allowed by the API.
> However, if you test for NULL, and log a report when you
> detect it then
> deref it anyway (to force an OOPS, in other words throw an
> exception),
> then at least there is some meaningful info in the log.
>
> But just doing something like
>
> void foo(void *ptr)
> {
> if (!ptr)
> return;
>
> ....
> }
>
> just masks the problem.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:38 EST