Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Fix double-free in iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and_mask() | From | Yang Yingliang <> | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:17:08 +0800 |
| |
Hi,
On 2021/10/13 4:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. I think in alloc path is using for loop, and in error/free path also using for loop is better to read the code. >
| |