From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 18] tools/blktap: fix access errors in
 convert_dev_name_to_num
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:44:35 +0200
Message-ID: <20120402144435.GD4000@aepfle.de>
References: <patchbomb.1333095917@probook.site>
	<1c86e2e5268d14587c73.1333095918@probook.site>
	<20345.44502.306179.202932@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20345.44502.306179.202932@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, Apr 02, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Olaf Hering writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 01 of 18] tools/blktap: fix access errors in convert_dev_name_to_num"):
> > xs_api.c: In function 'convert_dev_name_to_num':
> ...
> > ptr should be increased in each iteration, not the char it points to.
> 
> These changes from `*p++;' to `p++' are correct.  But the description
> is wrong.  `*p++' is the same as `*(p++)' ie it increments p and then
> uselessly dereferences it.
> 
> > -	char *p_sd = "/dev/sd";
> > -	char *p_hd = "/dev/hd";
> > -	char *p_xvd = "/dev/xvd";
> > -	char *p_plx = "plx";
> > -	char *alpha = "abcdefghijklmnop";
> > +	static const char p_sd[] = "/dev/sd";
> > +	static const char p_hd[] = "/dev/hd";
> > +	static const char p_xvd[] = "/dev/xvd";
> > +	static const char p_plx[] = "plx";
> > +	static const char alpha[] = "abcdefghijklmnop";
> 
> And this hunk seems entirely unexplained.  Is it supposed to be a
> const-correctness fix ?  Stylistic improvement ?

I think that part is not strictly needed.

Olaf