On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:46:43PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> On Sep 20, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> 
> >that is another valid issue.  I'd say we should define FREE() as free 
> >()
> >always (or just replace FREE() with free() and eliminate FREE()).
> 
> ...and we should just do the same with MALLOC().  It's an MP locking  
> nightmare to have that macro expand to what it actually does.   
> Exposing the guts of the implementation is considered harmful :-)

I was going to suggest the same thing.  I'll go ahead and do both of these.

-Chuck