Re: [PATCH v3 03/57] locking: Introduce __cleanup() based infrastructure

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:56 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>

[snip]

> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>  #include <linux/percpu-refcount.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
>
>
>  /*
> @@ -211,6 +212,8 @@ void kfree(const void *objp);
>  void kfree_sensitive(const void *objp);
>  size_t __ksize(const void *objp);
>
> +DEFINE_FREE(kfree, void *, if (_T) kfree(_T))
> +

Peter,

Yuri Norov pointed out to me (under a different cleanup patch) that
kfree() handles NULL-pointers and there's no reason to check it again
in DEFINE_FREE() macros. It seems right to me but I wanted to run it
by you and check if there is maybe some reason I'm not seeing to doing
it?

Bartosz

[snip]