[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131209191439.GG8098@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:14:39 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] tools lib traceevent: Get rid of malloc_or_die()
in show_error()
Em Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:30:09 -0300
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > + error = malloc(MAX_ERR_STR_SIZE);
> > > + if (error == NULL) {
> > > + /* no memory */
> > > + *error_str = "failed to allocate memory";
> > > + return;
> >
> > Can *error_str point to either malloc'ed or constant strings? Who
> > releases the allocated memory?
> >
>
> Good question. Perhaps we should have a flag that states if the string
> is allocated or not. Or better yet, since the only reason it would be
> pointing to a static string is if the string for error_str itself
> failed to allocate. Then we could use a string within pevent for it:
>
> static char *pevent_failed_error_alloc = "failed to allocate memory";
>
> Then in the freeing of error str:
>
> void pevent_free_error_str(error_str)
> {
> if (error_str != pevent_failed_error_alloc)
> free(error_str);
> }
That is a possibility, yes, then any other routine that works in such a
way could check against this string, but what is wrong with returning a
value to that function and checking against < 0?
- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists