David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 21:46:38 +0400 > >> I do not quite like doing so. Since this relies on fact that kfree bears >> NULL pointers. But if we ever switch from kmalloc to kmem_cache_alloc, >> this will result in an oops. > > The whole reason we made kfree allow NULL points is so that > checks for it would be ommitted at kfree calls sides, whether > they be direct or indirect. Hm... I really thought that this check in kfree is just for sanity against some 3rd part code. But why kmem_cache_free() is not such then? > Adding the check for some theoretical-or-not future change is > rediculious. Well, this makes sense. Shall I resubmit the set? Thanks, Pavel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
