Hi Markus,
I'd like to take some of your advice in this patch, but I noticed that
this one has been applied.
Some of your advice would be considered kindly on my future work.
Thanks.
在 2021/1/5 21:14, Markus Elfring 写道:
A null-ptr-deref bug is reported by Hulk Robot like this:
Can it be clearer to use the term “null pointer dereference” for the final commit message?
This advice is too detailed for 'null-ptr-deref' is known as a general
phrase like 'use-after-free' for kernel developer, I think.>
--------------
I suggest to choose an other character for drawing such a text line.
It's an acceptable advice, thanks.
Fix it by making …
Would you like to replace this wording by the tag “Fixes”?
Sorry, I didn't get your words.
'Fix it by' follows the solution
'Fixes' follows the commit which brought the problem.
In fact, I do considered using 'Fixes' on this one, but it's hard to
tell which specific commit brought this null pointer dereference.
Will an other imperative wording variant be helpful for this change description?
…
+++ b/net/qrtr/qrtr.c
@@ -1287,13 +1287,19 @@ static int __init qrtr_proto_init(void)
…
+err_sock:
+ sock_unregister(qrtr_family.family);
+err_proto:
+ proto_unregister(&qrtr_proto);
return rc;
}
Would it be clearer to use the labels “unregister_sock” and “unregister_proto”?
In fact, The reason I use 'err_sock' rather than 'unregister_sock' is to
keep same in 'net/qrtr/ns.c'.
I agree with you that “unregister_sock” is better in normal case.
Regards,
Markus
.
