On 29 January 2015 at 22:34, Benjamin Kaduk <bjkf...@gmail.com> 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 does not expect it can pass NULL. I didn't want to add the test just for consistency with free(). _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
