On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:07:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Because property_copy_string_array() stores the newly allocated pointer in the > > destination property, we have an awkward code in property_entry_copy_data() > > where we fetch the new pointer from dst. > > I don't see a problem in this function. > > Rather 'awkward code' is a result of use property_set_pointer() which relies on > data type. No, the awkwardness is that we set the pointer once in property_copy_string_array(), then fetch it in property_entry_copy_data() only to set it again via property_set_pointer(). This is confising and awkward and I believe it is cleaner for property_copy_string_array() to give a pointer to a copy of a string array, and then property_entry_copy_data() use it when handling the destination structure. Thanks. -- Dmitry
