On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:16:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. No, actually property_entries_dup() does not do the right thing anymore :(. > > >> > 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? Maybe, but not yet. Still, I am uncomfortable with functions not cleaning up but rather requiring leaving failed property structure in such state that cleanup function will not crash on it. I think it is fragile and I'd rather rework it so we clean up on the spot. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
