Em Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:47:57PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> > Em Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:12:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > Hm, I've unpulled it because 'perf top' crashes on exit, in
> > > dso__delete():
> > 495 if (dso->sname_alloc)
> > 496 free((char *)dso->short_name)
> Btw., instead of trusting flags I'd argue that using the pointer as a
> flag and clearing the pointer too is a much more robust freeing
> pattern in general:
> if (dso->short_name) {
> free(dso->short_name);
> dso->short_name = NULL;
> }
>
> or so ...
This is not an unusual idiom, if you look at tools/perf/util/ev{list,sel}.c,
for instance, you'll see it in many destructors.
In this case there is a micro optimization where sometimes the shortname
is just a pointer to the tail part of the long name, hence the flag.
- Arnaldo
--
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/
