On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:01:49 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote: > > This is just trading one kind of bug for another, and the __free() > > magic is at a cost of readability. > > > > I think we should ban the use of __free() in all of networking, > > until / unless it cleanly handles the NULL init case. > > Free handles the NULL init case, it doesn't handle the uninitialized > case. I had previously argued that checkpatch should complain about > every __free() pointer if the declaration doesn't have an assignment. > > The = NULL assignment is unnecessary if the pointer is assigned to > something else before the first return, so this might cause "unused > assignment" warnings? I don't know if there are any tools which > complain about that in that situation. I think probably we should just > make that an exception and do the checkpatch thing because it's such a > simple rule to implement. What I was trying to say is that the __free() thing is supposed to prevent bugs, and it's not. Even if it was easy to write the matcher rule, if __free() needs a rule to double check its use - it's failing at making it easier to write correct code. In any case. This is a patch for Intel wired, I'll let Intel folks decide.
