On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:00:59AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:53:00AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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: > > Yes, since property_set_pointer is called independently > > on the type of the value. > > We still call property_set_pointer() independently of the type of the > value even with this patch. The point is that we do not set the pointer > in property_copy_string_array(), so we only set the pointer once. > > We used to have essentially for string arrays: > > copy data > set pointer in dst > get pointer from dst > set pointer in dst > > With this patch we have: > > copy data > set pointer in dst > > > 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. > > I think I can still convince you ;) Probably this is fine. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
