From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753947AbXLEHMO (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:12:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750892AbXLEHL6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:11:58 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]:40145 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750815AbXLEHL6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:11:58 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Rv+Ey7w+Fe8Q/Ibm6QZDX+kI9e6RcX23+4NsbXLLH2UTwWvdYpYKaGqcdPJbm3ehXJ5h07niF74TA+Zx3h2B6cRlCd7JJat81PACVGR09sUsWPJoX1ayH/FDLQh/L76qLUpiT1Sh8mlcK+kRAOnTmcTAf/vOJVT5tYam3U0NLjw= Message-ID: <47564F35.30706@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:11:49 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WANG Cong CC: sam@ravnborg.org, Linux Kernel , notting@redhat.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order References: <47555AF1.8090304@gmail.com> <20071204150734.GE6113@hacking> <47557076.8080508@gmail.com> <20071205070127.GG2460@hacking> In-Reply-To: <20071205070127.GG2460@hacking> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 */? -- tejun