From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46608E76.9080109@goop.org> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:24:06 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks References: <20070531002047.702473071@sgi.com> <46603371.50808@goop.org> <46606C71.9010008@goop.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: >> I disagree. There are plenty of boundary conditions where 0 is not >> really a special case, and making it a special case just complicates >> things. I think at least some of the patches posted to silence this >> warning have been generally negative for code quality. If we were >> seeing lots of zero-sized allocations then that might indicate something >> is amiss, but it seems to me that there's just a scattered handful. >> >> I agree that it's always a useful debugging aid to make sure that >> allocated regions are not over-run, but 0-sized allocations are not >> special in this regard. >> > > Still insisting on it even after the discovery of the cpuset kmalloc(0) issue? > Sure. That was a normal buffer-overrun bug. There's nothing special about 0-sized allocations. J -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org