On Monday, October 18, 2010 4:59:17 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: > There's explicit protection for free(NULL, M_FOO), but uma_zfree(zone, > NULL) will put NULL in the local bucket and then probably return it > later from a uma_zalloc call. Obviously it's not a good idea to call > uma_zfree(9) on NULL, but in this case it's an easy mistake to make > when e.g. converting a set of malloc(9)/free(9) uses into uma(9). > > So is the "right" thing to allow a uma_zfree(NULL) and silently > succeed, like for free(9)? That would be my guess, but I'm open to > alternatives.
Given that free(3) and free(9) both handle NULL, I think it makes sense for uma_zfree() to do so as well. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
