On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:30 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:37 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> > > <ardeleanalex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:18 PM Yang Yingliang
> > > > <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When __iio_buffer_alloc_sysfs_and_mask() failed, 'unwind_idx' should be
> > > > > set to 'i - 1' to prevent double-free when cleanup resources.
> > []
> > >
> > > I prefer to see
> > >
> > > - for (; unwind_idx >= 0; unwind_idx--) {
> > > + while (unwind_idx--)
> >
> > Not the same code as unwind_idx would be decremented before entering
> > the code block.
>
> It's kinda cryptic what you are pointing out.
Not really,
> What's needed additionally is to change
>
> - unwind_idx = iio_dev_opaque->attached_buffers_cnt - 1;
> + unwind_idx = i;
You left out that 'additional change' above from your reply.
> Of course not. See above. The usual pattern is
>
> while (i--)
> do_clean_item(i);
Of course, but that's not what you replied.
I was merely pointing out that your reply included a logic change
converting a loop from for to while.
cheers, Joe
