Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	sam@ravnborg.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	notting@redhat.com, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, greg@kroah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:02:53 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200712061402.53850.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47564F35.30706@gmail.com>

On Wednesday 05 December 2007 18:11:49 Tejun Heo wrote:
> WANG Cong wrote:
> >>> I think, you forgot to free(3) the memory you calloc(3)'ed and
> >>> malloc(3)'ed above.
> >>
> >> It's a simple program where whole body is in main().  Why bother?
> >> What's the benefit of adding hash-table iterating free logic?
> >
> > Personally, I think memory leaks are bugs. And we hate bugs. ;)
>
> Trust me.  As a person buried alive in bug reports, I hate bugs too.  I
> just don't agree that this type of programs should free all its
> resources before exiting.  How about adding a comment saying /* we're
> going out anyway, don't bother freeing hashtable */?

I too once battled with the moral dilemma of freeing in programs that exit.

Then in 2001, I was moving out of a house which was to be demolished.  The 
landlord insisted that we pay for the carpets to be cleaned.  My wife still 
uses it as a canonical example of wasteful idiocy.

So I hope this has contributed to your enlightenment, as it did to mine.
Rusty.