On 29 January 2015 at 22:34, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be like a two-line patch to change contigfree(9) to permit NULL
> as an argument?
It would.
> Would it be better to do that?
Perhaps, although contigmalloc / contigfree have a smallish set of
distinct use cases and existing code
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Ed Maste wrote:
> Author: emaste
> Date: Fri Jan 30 03:17:07 2015
> New Revision: 277908
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/277908
>
> Log:
> Add note that contigfree(9) does not accept NULL
>
Wouldn't it be like a two-line patch to change contig
Author: emaste
Date: Fri Jan 30 03:17:07 2015
New Revision: 277908
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/277908
Log:
Add note that contigfree(9) does not accept NULL
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1721
Modified:
head/share/man/man9/contigmalloc.9
Modified:
