On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 04:40:06AM +0200, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:50:40AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Fix a possible oversight.
>
> Yes, properly coded in igt_device_scan() only. Thanks for spotting this.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/igt_device_scan.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/igt_device_scan.c b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > index 3c23fe0eb520..a30433ae2cff 100644
> > --- a/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > +++ b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > @@ -814,6 +814,11 @@ void igt_devices_free(void)
> > igt_device_free(dev);
> > free(dev);
> > }
> > +
> > + igt_list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &igt_devs.filtered, link) {
> > + igt_list_del(&dev->link);
> > + free(dev);
> > + }
>
> Small nit - I would change the order (filtered list I would remove first).
> igt_device_free() also frees dev->devnode, ... so if we would change the
> code to be more "parallel" it would be better to avoid use-after-free.
>
> With this:
>
> Reviewed-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski@xxxxxxxxx>
Tvrtko is away this week so I made this change and merged.
--
Petri Latvala
>
> --
> Zbigniew
>
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.32.0
> >
