On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:50:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The exception is if you use the memory allocator as a "ID allocator", but > quite frankly, if you use a size of zero, it's your own damn problem. > Insane code is not an argument for insane behaviour. > If people can't be bothered to create a "random ID generator" themselves, > they had damn well better use "kmalloc(1)" rather than "kmalloc(0)" to get > a unique cookie. Asking the allocator to do something idiotic because some > idiot thinks a memory allocator is a cookie allocator is just crazy.
It's not such a great idea in general. Maybe it's a dumb device to cut down on lines of code for merging or some such. On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:50:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I can understand that things like user-level libraries have to take crazy > people into account, but the kernel internal libraries definitely do not. > (Right now we warn once for zero-sized allocations anyway, and all the > cases we've found so far are either bugs that would have been found with > ZERO_ALLOC_PTR or would have been perfectly fine with it, so I don't think > anybody really _is_ that insane in the kernel) There are always drivers for that, but I doubt any were sufficiently creative to pick up on this. At least I've not see any. -- wli - 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/
