On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:52:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 09:07 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On February 2, 2017 8:48:30 AM PST, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko >> > @linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 08:39 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > >> > > > Data that is fed into property arrays should not be modified, so >> > > >> > > let's >> > > > mark >> > > > relevant pointers as const. This will allow us making source >> > > > arrays >> > > >> > > as >> > > > const/__initconst. >> > > > >> > > > Also fix memory leaks on errors in property_entry_copy(). >> > > >> > > While the code looks okay, I'm not sure what memory leaks you are >> > > referring to. The idea as far as I remember was to run *free() >> > > function >> > > if *copy() fails. >> > >> > That could have been OK for internal function, but will not work for >> > public API, as it goes against normal pattern. But it is an internal function, isn't it? Also its only caller does the right thing AFAICS. >> > You will be old and grey and still correcting patches that would be >> > getting it wrong :) >> >> Yes, which sounds not exactly as "we have memory leaks and here we are >> fixing them". So, my comment regarding to phrasing of the commit >> message. Someone might mistakenly think that it needs to be ported as >> earlier as this had been introduced. > > OK, I'll leave it up to Rafael to massage the commit message as he sees > fit. To be precise, there are no memory leaks and this is just adding an unnecessary label along with some code around it, equally unnecessary. Are you planning on making property_entry_copy() non-static? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
