On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > :(. Well, it looks like this is because of patch [1/4], so IMO the changes to clean up on errors in property_entry_copy() should be made in that patch as well. Right now we seem to have potential memory leaks introduced in patch [1/4] and then fixed up in patch [3/4] in the same series which doesn't feel quite right to be honest. >> >> >> > 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. Fair enough, but that should happen in patch [1/4] already IMO. 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
