[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6d1a248-daee-afa9-c71c-5688aa76afdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:37:58 +0900
From: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf tools: Use zfree() instead of free() in
parse-events.c
On 01/30/2017 06:01 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:23:38PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
>> Currently there are several parts not checking NULL
>> after allocating with zalloc() or asigning NULL value
>> to a pointer variable after doing free().
>>
>> So I fill in code checking NULL and
>> use zfree() instead of free().
>
> can't see directly reasons for zfree usage,
> but it looks reasonable.. do you have any
> crash reports due to missing zfree?
No, Just I read source code util/parse-events.c
And I found several insufficiency, shortcoming
not checking NULL or assigning NULL value to a pointer
variable after free().
So, I think we can use zfree() insteadof free()+assigning NULL.
Change commit message to be more appropriate ?
Thanks,
Taeung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists