Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:01:09 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     A <amit234234234234@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Setting variable NULL after freeing it.
Message-ID: <20221112120109.GA5592@1wt.eu>
References: <CAOM0=dbwNs1XcnD0i+SrC1S-SNFEGXM5G8QrVCqAxaz=YkAEFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221112074759.GA5111@1wt.eu>
 <CAOM0=daopCt=LthGStL2zHYxgQ6iphLLfKZjxcPS07yCvyq42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221112113410.GA5553@1wt.eu>
 <CAOM0=dbuPP1j7MYkZCxbXQKxUsjeO0QXfE_g-xapFXYSpCAgXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOM0=dbuPP1j7MYkZCxbXQKxUsjeO0QXfE_g-xapFXYSpCAgXw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 05:28:04PM +0530, A wrote:
> I was just thinking that when this is good practice (where its usage
> is genuine), then why is there not a kernel wide macro that would call
> kfree(x) and then set (x) = NULL. So, this will be done automatically
> for everyone and the developer will not have to decide whether to do
> this or not.

Very likely because developers want to decide.

Willy