Re: [2.4] init/do_mounts.c::rd_load_image() memleak

[John Alvord]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:05:40 +0200, Denis Vlasenko
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 14 March 2003 10:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> No that would just be another pointless exercise in causing more
>> annoyance for someone who has to look through patches finding that
>> one hunk that breaks stuff. The recent spelling changes come to mind.
>
>How we should do such global small cleanups?
>Maybe grep the source and bring the list of affected files
>to maintainers' attention, letting the to gradually push
>changes to Linus...
>
>I suspect "bring the list to maintainers' attention"
>will be a trickier part ;)
>
>> But just because you don't seem to have seen any kfree(NULL) in the
>> kernel does not mean they are not there. And should a good trend not
>> allow to grow?
>
>"if(p) free(p)" => "free(p)" is mostly ok, less code.
>
>But free is called now unconditionally. Make an exception
>for performance-critical places where p is almost always 0.

The one implementation I looked at carefully (SAS/C) looked like this:

 	free(p);
	---------
	if (p)
		malloc(p);

so 
	if (p) free(p);
	-------------
	if (p)
	     if (p)
		malloc(p);

which seems fairly worthless.

john