On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:14:39 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> 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 <a...@ghostprotocols.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?
Then everyone has to check if show_error() failed. Then report a bug if
it did. Egad, then we need to check if that error function failed, and
then that one and that one and that one :-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
