* jamal <1111583497.1089.92.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-03-23 08:11
> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 07:55, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * jamal <1111581618.1088.72.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-03-23 07:40
> > > Just a small correction to patchlet:
> > > The second kfree should check for existence of t.
> > t is either valid or NULL so it's not a problem, unless you want
> > to create janitor work of course. ;->
> if t is null you still goto rtattr_failure
> I have seen people put little comments of "kfree will work if you
> pass it NULL" - are you saying such assumptions exist all over
kfree simply does nothing if it is given a null pointer so that
goto rtattr_failure for t == NULL is handled just fine without
a check. I will never get used to this behaviour and policy as
well though, it somewhat makes code less readable.
> didnt understand the janitor part.
It will probably be removed again by one of the regular 'remove
unnecessary pre kfree checks' patchsets.