>> I interpreted the eventual passing of a null pointer to the rbd_dev_destroy() >> function as an indication for further source code adjustments. > > If all error paths could be adjusted so that NULL pointers are never passed > in, > destroy functions wouldn't need to have a NULL check, would they?
How do you think about to clarify corresponding implementation details a bit more? * Why was the function "rbd_dev_probe_parent" implemented in the way that it relies on a sanity check in the function "rbd_dev_destroy" then? * How are the chances to restructure the source code a bit (like changing a few jump labels) so that it should also work without an extra function call during error handling there? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
