Hi Jesper, > > Not necessarily. It helps tell the reader that the pointer may be > > NULL at that point. This has come up before. > > > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/bd3d6e5a29e43c73/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > > > I agree that > > if (foo->bar) { > kfree(foo->bar); > foo->bar = NULL; > } > > makes it easy to see that foo->bar might be NULL, but I think the > advantages of simply > > kfree(foo->bar); > foo->bar = NULL; > > outweigh that. > > Having to remember that kfree(NULL) is valid shouldn't be hard, people > should be used to that from userspace code calling free(),
Agreed. > and if there are places where it's important to remember that the > pointer might be NULL, then a simple comment would do, wouldn't it? > > kfree(foo->bar); /* kfree(NULL) is valid */ I'd rather be without the same comment littering the code. > the short version also have the real bennefits of generating shorter > and faster code as well as being shorter "on-screen". Faster code? I'd have thought avoiding the function call outweighed the overhead of checking before calling. Cheers, Ralph. - 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/
