> Alan Stern wrote:
> > Ultimately this comes down to a question of style and taste. This
> > particular issue is not addressed in Documentation/CodingStyle so I'm
> > raising it here. My personal preference is for code that means what it
> > says; if a pointer is checked it should be because there is a genuine
> > possibility that the pointer _is_ NULL. I see no reason for pure
> > paranoia, particularly if it's not commented as such.
> > Comments, anyone?
> BUG_ON() perhaps?
Not really needed, since a segfault will produce almost as much
information as a BUG_ON(). Certainly it will produce enough to let a
developer know that the pointer was NULL.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/