From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751568AbcGOQhj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:37:39 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:41398 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751032AbcGOQhh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:37:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:37:31 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf script python: Fix string vs byte array
 resolving
Message-ID: <20160715163731.GA18928@kernel.org>
References: <1468567797-27564-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <1468567797-27564-2-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20160715155110.GF1983@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20160715120231.4539632f@gandalf.local.home>
 <20160715161310.GA831@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160715161310.GA831@krava>
X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:13:10PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:02:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > > for "AA\1\0" this returns "1" although that should return "0".
> > > 
> > > orig len 4
> > > decremented len 3
> > > for:
> > > 0 1
> > > 
> > > index 2 would not be inspected. Or am I missing something?
> > > 
> > > I think that the for check should be "i < len"
> > 
> > Yes it should be. I think we got the two solutions mixed up.
> > 
> > With the above len--, it should be i < len, but when we did the check
> > for zero at the end, we needed the i < len - 1
> 
> ugh right.. should be 'i < len' check in the for loop,
> 
> there's also the patch 2/3 that needs to be changed
> 
> Arnaldo,
> please let me know if you need me to resend this.

So I need to drop those, even with Rostedt's acked-by? Ok, please
resend, hopefully this time with a Tested-by from the reporter?

- Arnaldo