Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Don't retest sections in "Object code reading"

[James Clark]

On 07/10/2025 9:01 pm, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:10:12AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> > On 06/10/2025 4:21 pm, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 6:11 AM James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +       data = zalloc(sizeof(*data));
> > > > +       if (!data)
> > > > +               return true;
>
> > > > +       data->addr = addr;
> > > > +       strlcpy(data->path, path, sizeof(data->path));
>   
> > > nit: perhaps strdup rather than having 4kb per tested_section.
>
> > Oh yeah that would have been better, not sure why I didn't do it that way.
> > Although the max sections I saw was around 50, and it's usually a lot less
> > so it's probably not worth the churn to change it now that Arnaldo's applied
> > it?
>
> I see you submitted a patch for using strdup() and then there is a need
> for checking the strdup(), etc.
>
> Since at this point this is an improvement on a test and all is sitting
> in linux-next and the window is closing for v6.18, lets leave this for
> the next window, ok?

Makes sense.

> These would be good things for some tool to catch, before it gets sent,
> but that is another rabbit hole :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Arnaldo

Does Smatch work on Perf? I imagine it would catch this if it does. Or 
just plain old cppcheck. I'll take a look.

James