Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:49:20 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL 00/21] perf/core improvements and fixes |
| |
Em Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:18:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote: > > > -void dso__set_short_name(struct dso *dso, const char *name) > > +void dso__set_short_name(struct dso *dso, const char *name, bool sname_alloc) > > { > > if (name == NULL) > > return; > > + if (dso->sname_alloc) > > + free((char *)dso->short_name); > > + dso->sname_alloc = sname_alloc; > > Calling the function option the same as the field name is asking for > trouble - I'd suggest 'new_sname_alloc' for the parameter, or so. > > And I'd also remove the 'const' from struct dso::short_name, it > probably does not help code generation, because 'dso' is passed in as > const in all the non-lifetime methods anyway.
> That way the cast can be dropped from the free().
Not that simple, there are multiple places that pass a constant short_name, for instance:
machine__get_kernel() kernel = dso__kernel_findnew(machine, vmlinux_name, "[kernel]", DSO_TYPE_KERNEL); dso__set_short_name(dso, short_name);
So dso->short_name will point to "[kernel]", which is a const char *.
> Similar problems exist with the usage of 'short_name' - it overloads > the field name which makes it somewhat confusing, and it's also > sometimes inconsistently named, such as 'name' in > dso__set_short_name(). > > Ditto for 'long_name' handling. > > Also, the 'sname_alloc' name sucks, it does not make it obvious that
> it's related to 'short_name', hiding its true significance (and hiding > the broken life time handling of the flag/pointer combo). I'd rename > it to something more descriptive, like ->short_name_allocated - or I'd > rename everything to 'sname'/'lname' naming for short/long names.
Ok, we can use rename it to short_name_alloc, like we have short_name_len.
> Every time one runs into a crash like this it's a canary signal that > cleanliness principles need hardening.
Hardening we go then!
> Thanks, > > Ingo
| |