Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It is fine to call kfree with a possible NULL pointer:
> …
> > * If @object is NULL, no operation is performed.
> > */
> > void kfree(const void *object)
>
> Such a function call triggers an input parameter validation
> with a corresponding immediate return, doesn't it?
> Do you find such data processing really helpful for the desired error/exception handling?
It's not just personal preference. It is an established pattern to
avoid extra NULL tests around kfree.
A quick git log to show a few recent examples of patches that expressly
remove such branches, e.g.,
commit d0110443cf4a ("amd/pds_core: core: No need for Null pointer check before kfree")
commit efd9d065de67 ("drm/radeon: Remove unnecessary NULL test before kfree in 'radeon_connector_free_edid'")
An interesting older thread on the topic:
https://linux-kernel.vger.kernel.narkive.com/KVjlDsTo/kfree-null
My summary, the many branches scattered throughout the kernel likely
are more expensive than the occasional save from seeing the rare NULL
pointer.
