On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 01:51 -0700, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... I'd just added test printf to the handle_param() and see if I
> > print *next, it is either --param or --param=*. So, using return (next +
> > 2) helps, otherwise we end up with the same situation as before patch.
>
> The return value from handle_switch() is a bit tricky. It is actually points
> to
> the current args which about to be expired.
>
> Take a look at this code which invoke the handle_switch().
> for (;;) {
> char *arg = *++args; <---------------- notice the ++
> before the fetch
> if (!arg)
> break;
>
> if (arg[0] == '-' && arg[1]) {
> args = handle_switch(arg+1, args); <-------- args return here.
> continue;
> }
> add_ptr_list_notag(filelist, arg);
> }
>
> >
> > What did I miss?
>
> So the caller loop will perform 1 pointer advance before fetch.
> Your code can advance 2 pointer, so that is total 3 pointer advance.
Yeah, thanks for explanation. Just noticed this after send a message.
>
> >
> > Which was explicitly mentioned in the commit message.
>
> Sorry about that, I jump to the code first. I later notice that in
> the commit message as well.
>
> Any way, the change I push should fix all that.
Yup. Thank you.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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/
