From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752628AbdBBSuV (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:50:21 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:33767 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752280AbdBBSik (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:38:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:38:31 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Joe Perches , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg , Hans de Goede , Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] device property: constify property arrays values Message-ID: <20170202183831.GA32759@dtor-ws> References: <20170201173125.40354-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20170201173125.40354-4-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <1485991803.22276.14.camel@perches.com> <1605853.brEpCT4tOG@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170202163918.GA21924@dtor-ws> <1486054110.2133.366.camel@linux.intel.com> <1486057978.2133.369.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1486057978.2133.369.camel@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:52:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 09:07 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On February 2, 2017 8:48:30 AM PST, Andy Shevchenko > @linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 08:39 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov > > > > > > > > Data that is fed into property arrays should not be modified, so > > > > > > let's > > > > mark > > > > relevant pointers as const. This will allow us making source > > > > arrays > > > > > > as > > > > const/__initconst. > > > > > > > > Also fix memory leaks on errors in property_entry_copy(). > > > > > > While the code looks okay, I'm not sure what memory leaks you are > > > referring to. The idea as far as I remember was to run *free() > > > function > > > if *copy() fails. > > > > That could have been OK for internal function, but will not work for > > public API, as it goes against normal pattern. > > > > You will be old and grey and still correcting patches that would be > > getting it wrong :) > > Yes, which sounds not exactly as "we have memory leaks and here we are > fixing them". So, my comment regarding to phrasing of the commit > message. Someone might mistakenly think that it needs to be ported as > earlier as this had been introduced. OK, I'll leave it up to Rafael to massage the commit message as he sees fit. Thanks. -- Dmitry