> > Here a version of the patch that drops the WARN_ONs > > And now all that's done, how about yet another random person stepping in and > suggesting NIL or maybe NIL_PTR instead of ZERO_SIZE_PTR? > > I understand the idea is that code need not necesarily care about zero sized > allocation meaning it won't (generally) need to spell it out but it's still a > dreadful name... :-(
The name says exactly what it is. It's not at all dreadful. If we're going to return a special value in the zero-size case (and in only that case) as a valid pointer instead of actually allocating one byte and treating it as zero, what we have is...a zero-size pointer. ZERO_SIZE_PTR is a pretty damn good name. - 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/
