From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69C21C54798 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14123CF978 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:11:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB1663CCBD1 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:11:07 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-3.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A772C1B60EF9 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:11:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449961F802; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:11:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708686665; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+81oS1gl4MrQud87hZKDEk7lehP0hfA7hg/c60ev6GY=; b=OXrvV8NXsPJSH+qftf7bdRyR55x9+Lcbi/keVqJGdlF1jhxJBWP9OnSTmSZbve6p9lplOe qyDUq9LcoWzChzOc/lPMDQ56LNY1gq7QjwHuPYlgWT58xnCsv7shy6fyrxsuZ3Ku5P4vqJ UXKNI5YiH0Arm1KixH1GashV/AoDiIo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708686665; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+81oS1gl4MrQud87hZKDEk7lehP0hfA7hg/c60ev6GY=; b=R2ti4bDaxUh16co9Ng8n0map2kES6V4/ROWn7/f7Bh022duG4K2G6uJGO/s7V7RDSQjNAQ zyUcqrGglU0K4pDw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708686665; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+81oS1gl4MrQud87hZKDEk7lehP0hfA7hg/c60ev6GY=; b=OXrvV8NXsPJSH+qftf7bdRyR55x9+Lcbi/keVqJGdlF1jhxJBWP9OnSTmSZbve6p9lplOe qyDUq9LcoWzChzOc/lPMDQ56LNY1gq7QjwHuPYlgWT58xnCsv7shy6fyrxsuZ3Ku5P4vqJ UXKNI5YiH0Arm1KixH1GashV/AoDiIo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708686665; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+81oS1gl4MrQud87hZKDEk7lehP0hfA7hg/c60ev6GY=; b=R2ti4bDaxUh16co9Ng8n0map2kES6V4/ROWn7/f7Bh022duG4K2G6uJGO/s7V7RDSQjNAQ zyUcqrGglU0K4pDw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 340C9133DC; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id tYpjC0l92GVcYQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:11:05 +0000 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:09:54 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: <20240222153648.2563-1-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> <20240222233614.GA1417479@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240222233614.GA1417479@pevik> Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=OXrvV8NX; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=R2ti4bDa X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.04 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:dkim,suse.cz:email]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-0.15)[68.80%] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 449961F802 X-Spamd-Bar: / X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v4] Add stat04 test X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > If SAFE_SYMLINK() fails, free() will not happen. I wonder if we should bother > (we'd have to set it NULL and add a cleanup function). There is no point in bothering to deallocate memory if the process is going to call exit() soon anyways. My main complaint was that we allocated memory in run() function, which is obviously a problem for large enough -i... -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp