On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > An allocation of zero bytes usually indicates that the code is not dealing > > with a special case. Later code may operate on the allocated object. I > > think its clearer and cleaner if code would deal with that special case > > explicitly. We have seen a series of code pieces that do uncomfortably > > looking operations on structures with no objects. > > > > I disagree. There are plenty of boundary conditions where 0 is not > really a special case, and making it a special case just complicates > things. I think at least some of the patches posted to silence this > warning have been generally negative for code quality. If we were > seeing lots of zero-sized allocations then that might indicate something > is amiss, but it seems to me that there's just a scattered handful. > > I agree that it's always a useful debugging aid to make sure that > allocated regions are not over-run, but 0-sized allocations are not > special in this regard.
Still insisting on it even after the discovery of the cpuset kmalloc(0) issue? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
