Re: kfree(NULL)

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Hua Zhong wrote:
>>It can reduce readability of the code [unless it is used in 
>>error path simplification, kfree(something) usually suggests 
>>kfree-an-object].
> 
> 
> Consistency in coding style improves readability. Redundancy reduces readability.
> 
> The interface is simple and clear, and has been documented for decades, that is kfree (and free) accepts NULL. There is no ambiguity
> here.
> 
> If you think "if (obj) kfree (obj);" is more readable than "kfree(obj);", fix the API to enforce it.
> 
> But if the kernel tree is full of "some caller checks NULL while others not", I hardly see it as readable. It'd just be confusing.
>  
> 
>>I don't actually like kfree(NULL) any time except error 
>>paths. It is subjective, not crazy talk.
> 
> 
> Documented interface is not subjective.

That's great. I don't know quite how to reply, or even if I should
if you don't read what I write.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com