On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:00:59AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:53:00AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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:
> > Yes, since property_se
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:53:00AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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_co
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
> > >
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()
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 f
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.
Let's change property_copy_string_array() to return pointer and rely on the
common path in property_en
6 matches
Mail list logo