On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:50:40AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
>
> Fix a possible oversight.
Yes, properly coded in igt_device_scan() only. Thanks for spotting this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
> ---
> lib/igt_device_scan.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/igt_device_scan.c b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> index 3c23fe0eb520..a30433ae2cff 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> +++ b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> @@ -814,6 +814,11 @@ void igt_devices_free(void)
> igt_device_free(dev);
> free(dev);
> }
> +
> + igt_list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &igt_devs.filtered, link) {
> + igt_list_del(&dev->link);
> + free(dev);
> + }
Small nit - I would change the order (filtered list I would remove first).
igt_device_free() also frees dev->devnode, ... so if we would change the
code to be more "parallel" it would be better to avoid use-after-free.
With this:
Reviewed-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczyn...@intel.com>
--
Zbigniew
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.32.0
>
