svn commit: r277908 - head/share/man/man9

[Ed Maste]

On 29 January 2015 at 22:34, Benjamin Kaduk <bjkfbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be like a two-line patch to change contigfree(9) to permit NULL
> as an argument?

It would.

> Would it be better to do that?

Perhaps, although contigmalloc / contigfree have a smallish set of
distinct use cases and existing code does not expect it can pass NULL.
I didn't want to add the test just for consistency with free().