Yan Burman wrote: > Stefan Richter wrote: >> ...in this ^, the old code and your update don't check for NULL return. > > Both of this parts are done at early stages, so it is probably: > a) Impossible to recover from failure > b) If you run out of memory at this stage, you are probably in very big > trouble anyway > > I could modify it to check and panic if the check fails. > Would that be better? I hope the domain experts answer this. (I have no recommendation but wanted to point out a potential, although unlikely, cause for trouble.) -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-==- =-== ==--- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
