Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks

[Robert Hancock]

Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> I'm on Christoph's side here.  I don't think it makes sense for any code
> to ask to allocate zero bytes of memory and expect valid memory to be
> returned.
>
> Would a compromise be to return a pointer to some known invalid region?
> This way the kmalloc(0) call would appear successful to the caller, but
> any access to the memory would result in an exception.

I would think returning 1 as the address would work here, it's not NULL 
but any access to that page should still oops..

--
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/