Message-ID: <41A9148E.6070501@dbservice.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:58:06 +0100
From: Tomas Carnecky <tom@dbservice.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcel Sebek <sebek64@post.cz>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, akpm@osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document kfree and vfree NULL usage
References: <1101565560.9988.20.camel@localhost> <20041127171357.GA5381@penguin.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20041127171357.GA5381@penguin.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 994
Lines: 28

Marcel Sebek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 04:26:00PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>This patch adds comments for kfree() and vfree() stating that both accept
>>NULL pointers.  I audited vfree() callers and there seems to be lots of
>>confusion over this in the kernel.
>>
> I've cleaned up sound/ directory from "if (x) {k/v}free(x);" and similar
> constructions. I'm going to to this for most of the kernel if I found
> some time.

Isn't 'if (x) { free(x); }' faster than the call to free() with a NULL
pointer?
What about a macro ?
#define fast_free(x) if (x) { free(x); }
Or even
#define kfree(x) if (x) { _kfree(x); }
Or maybe a inline function so it doesn't break existing code.
inline void kfree(x) { if (x) { _kfree(x); } }

tom
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/