Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] device property: constify property arrays values

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:52:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 09:07 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > On February 2, 2017 8:48:30 AM PST, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko
>> > @linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 08:39 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > >
>> > > > Data that is fed into property arrays should not be modified, so
>> > >
>> > > let's
>> > > > mark
>> > > > relevant pointers as const. This will allow us making source
>> > > > arrays
>> > >
>> > > as
>> > > > const/__initconst.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also fix memory leaks on errors in property_entry_copy().
>> > >
>> > > While the code looks okay, I'm not sure what memory leaks you are
>> > > referring to. The idea as far as I remember was to run *free()
>> > > function
>> > > if *copy() fails.
>> >
>> > That could have been OK for internal function, but will not work for
>> > public API, as it goes against normal pattern.

But it is an internal function, isn't it?

Also its only caller does the right thing AFAICS.

>> > You will be old and grey and still correcting patches that would be
>> > getting it wrong :)
>>
>> Yes, which sounds not exactly as "we have memory leaks and here we are
>> fixing them". So, my comment regarding to phrasing of the commit
>> message. Someone might mistakenly think that it needs to be ported as
>> earlier as this had been introduced.
>
> OK, I'll leave it up to Rafael to massage the commit message as he sees
> fit.

To be precise, there are no memory leaks and this is just adding an
unnecessary label along with some code around it, equally unnecessary.

Are you planning on making property_entry_copy() non-static?

Thanks,
Rafael