Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] aoe [5/12]: don't try to free null bufpool

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, Mar 24 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 09:04 -0800, ecashin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 07:17 -0800, ecashin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> don't try to free null bufpool
> > >
> > > in linux there is a "rule" that all memory free routines are supposed to
> > > also accept NULL as argument, so I think this patch is not needed (and
> > > even wrong)
> > >
> > 
> > Hmm.  The mm/mempool.c:mempool_destroy function immediately
> > dereferences the pointer passed to it:
> > 
> > void mempool_destroy(mempool_t *pool)
> > {
> > 	if (pool->curr_nr != pool->min_nr)
> > 		BUG();		/* There were outstanding elements */
> > 	free_pool(pool);
> > }
> > 
> > ... so I'm not sure mempool_destroy fits the rule.  Are you suggesting
> > that the patch should instead modify mempool_destroy?
> 
> hmm perhaps... Jens?

Not really my call, but I agree we should make mempool_destroy()
resilient against !pool to follow the path of least surprise.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/