From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266466AbTGJUiL (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:38:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269526AbTGJUiL (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:38:11 -0400 Received: from zeke.inet.com ([199.171.211.198]:50569 "EHLO zeke.inet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266466AbTGJUiJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:38:09 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0DD21B.5010408@inet.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:52:43 -0500 From: Eli Carter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Stern CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Stern wrote: [snip] > Ultimately this comes down to a question of style and taste. This > particular issue is not addressed in Documentation/CodingStyle so I'm > raising it here. My personal preference is for code that means what it > says; if a pointer is checked it should be because there is a genuine > possibility that the pointer _is_ NULL. I see no reason for pure > paranoia, particularly if it's not commented as such. > > Comments, anyone? BUG_ON() perhaps? Eli --------------------. "If it ain't broke now, Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------