Hi Mahesh, On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:10:33 +0530 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > This patch fixes following BUGs: > > > > [..] > > > > > - The loop construct used for array of char* (pointer) silently fails and > > > does not filter the strings. > > > > Did the silent failure happen at the following code of list_entry_empty() ? > > > > 7373 addr = get_config_symbol_addr(le, 0, NULL); > > 7374 if (!addr) > > 7375 return TRUE; > > > > Nope. It use to fail in resolve_list_entry()->resolve_config_entry() > and following hunk from the patch fixes it: > > @@ -6866,7 +6882,7 @@ resolve_config_entry(struct config_entry *ce, unsigned long long base_addr, > * If this is a struct or list_head data type then > * create a leaf node entry with 'next' member. > */ > - if ((ce->type_flag & TYPE_BASE) > + if (((ce->type_flag & (TYPE_BASE | TYPE_ARRAY)) == TYPE_BASE) > && (strcmp(ce->type_name, "void"))) > return FALSE; > > The old code use to check only TYPE_BASE flag ignoring TYPE_ARRAY flag. Thank you for the explanation. I feel I see it. Is the below understanding right ? At the part of earlier resolve_config_entry(), necessary information (sym_addr, type_name, and array_length) can be gotten in the case of pointer array. However, the old resolve_config_entry() returned FALSE because of the check lack you said. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi
