On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:12:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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(). Yes, since property_set_pointer is called independently on the type of the value. > 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. We probably need a 3rd opinion here. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
