Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources > > should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will > > currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe > > to pass it NULL. > > The best response to mempool_destroy(0) is an oops. There's no legitimate > reason for doing it. > Ok, ignore the patch then. -- Jesper - 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/
Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources > should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will > currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe > to pass it NULL. The best response to mempool_destroy(0) is an oops. There's no legitimate reason for doing it. - 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/
[PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources
should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will
currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe
to pass it NULL.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mempool.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm2-orig/mm/mempool.c 2005-04-05 21:21:56.0
+0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm2/mm/mempool.c 2005-04-09 03:33:58.0 +0200
@@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_resize);
*/
void mempool_destroy(mempool_t *pool)
{
+ if (!pool)
+ return;
if (pool->curr_nr != pool->min_nr)
BUG(); /* There were outstanding elements */
free_pool(pool);
-
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/
[PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources
should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will
currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe
to pass it NULL.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
mempool.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm2-orig/mm/mempool.c 2005-04-05 21:21:56.0
+0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm2/mm/mempool.c 2005-04-09 03:33:58.0 +0200
@@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_resize);
*/
void mempool_destroy(mempool_t *pool)
{
+ if (!pool)
+ return;
if (pool-curr_nr != pool-min_nr)
BUG(); /* There were outstanding elements */
free_pool(pool);
-
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/
Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe to pass it NULL. The best response to mempool_destroy(0) is an oops. There's no legitimate reason for doing it. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] make mempool_destroy resilient against NULL pointers.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: General rule (as I understand it) is that functions that free resources should handle being passed NULL pointers - mempool_destroy() will currently explode if passed a NULL pointer, the patch below makes it safe to pass it NULL. The best response to mempool_destroy(0) is an oops. There's no legitimate reason for doing it. Ok, ignore the patch then. -- Jesper - 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/
