Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Tue, 12 Oct 2021 23:58:50 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Fix double-free in iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and_mask() |
| |
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:55 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:18 PM Yang Yingliang > > > > > <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
...
> > > > 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,
It's. It lacks the very same "additional" words to explain what you meant and why.
> > 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.
Yes, that's true, but it took some time to decrypt your message.
> > 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.
I expect that developers actually think about the changes they do and double check what's proposed by reviewers. If they just copy'n'paste whatever others propose, I wouldn't take any patch from such a developer.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |