Re: kfree(NULL)

[Nick Piggin]

Hua Zhong wrote:
> > It can reduce readability of the code [unless it is used in 
> > error path simplification, kfree(something) usually suggests 
> > kfree-an-object].
>
>
> Consistency in coding style improves readability. Redundancy reduces readability.
>
> The interface is simple and clear, and has been documented for decades, that is kfree (and free) accepts NULL. There is no ambiguity
> here.
>
> If you think "if (obj) kfree (obj);" is more readable than "kfree(obj);", fix the API to enforce it.
>
> But if the kernel tree is full of "some caller checks NULL while others not", I hardly see it as readable. It'd just be confusing.
>  
>
> > I don't actually like kfree(NULL) any time except error 
> > paths. It is subjective, not crazy talk.
>
>
> Documented interface is not subjective.

That's great. I don't know quite how to reply, or even if I should
if you don't read what I write.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/