[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191016075300.GO32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:53:00 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/14] software node: clean up
property_copy_string_array()
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:12:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:07:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Because property_copy_string_array() stores the newly allocated pointer in the
> > > destination property, we have an awkward code in property_entry_copy_data()
> > > where we fetch the new pointer from dst.
> >
> > I don't see a problem in this function.
> >
> > Rather 'awkward code' is a result of use property_set_pointer() which relies on
> > data type.
>
> No, the awkwardness is that we set the pointer once in
> property_copy_string_array(), then fetch it in
> property_entry_copy_data() only to set it again via
> property_set_pointer().
Yes, since property_set_pointer is called independently
on the type of the value.
> This is confising and awkward and I believe it
> is cleaner for property_copy_string_array() to give a pointer to a copy
> of a string array, and then property_entry_copy_data() use it when
> handling the destination structure.
We probably need a 3rd opinion here.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists