* Re: [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely
[not found] <200503290507.j2T57k3U017427@hera.kernel.org>
@ 2005-03-29 7:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-03-29 7:12 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2005-03-29 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Andrew Morton
Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> ChangeSet 1.2231.1.8, 2005/03/28 19:18:25-08:00, akpm@osdl.org
>
> [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely
>
> - mark kfree(NULL) as being unlikely
This is just a wild guess, right?
Seems to me, it depends on the code.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely
2005-03-29 7:05 ` [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely Jeff Garzik
@ 2005-03-29 7:12 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2005-03-29 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.8, 2005/03/28 19:18:25-08:00, akpm@osdl.org
> >
> > [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely
> >
> > - mark kfree(NULL) as being unlikely
>
> This is just a wild guess, right?
More like a judgement based on experience?
> Seems to me, it depends on the code.
>
If someone is doing kfree(0) with sufficient frequency for this patch to
matter, then they need to stop doing that, rather than pessimising kfree(not 0).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-03-29 8:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200503290507.j2T57k3U017427@hera.kernel.org>
2005-03-29 7:05 ` [PATCH] slab: kfree(null) is unlikely Jeff Garzik
2005-03-29 7:12 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox