On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, James Bottomley wrote: > > Try this; the signature for an uninitialised free list is easy (both > list pointers NULL), so the patch detects that and doesn't try to run > over the uninitialised list head. Why aren't these things initialized? You say that the signature of an uninitialised free list is trivial, but that's not at all true in general. It depends intimately on how the memory was allocated, and is thus very subtle indeed - some change to allocations can break something simple like this, by initializing it with random old memory contents. So why not just initialize lists like this so early (ie at allocation time) that problems like this cannot happen? Instead of adding ugly and fragile cases to the freeing? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
