Hi, thanks for finding bugs in this patch. Although this path will likely never happen, this is good to have it bug-free.
On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 09:25 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > Artem would have to step in here to verify if there really is a good > reason why we kmalloc a fresh ubi_scan_leb every time we want to add > one to a list. Particularly in vtbl.c there is no good reason. Leftover of itsy-bitsy units. I'll make ubi_scan_add_to_list static, as well as ubi_scan_add_used(). And I'll rename them to something shorter. They are only useful in scan.c. And it is fine to use list_add_tail() directly in vtbl.c. Will be fixed. > If possible, the best solution would be to change > ubi_scan_add_to_list() to take in a valid struct ubi_scan_leb and just > add that to the specified list (using list_add_tail or whatever) -- > and leave allocation up to callers, In scan.c it is useful because _all_ callers have to allocate it. vtbl.c is the only place which does not need it. I'll fix this. > >though this likely requires a > major cleanup of this driver w.r.t. ubi_scan_leb lifetime semantics. What is wrong with the semantics, please be more specific. I'll fix this shortly. -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
