On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 07:48:38AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:33:05PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > On 01/28/15 at 01:22pm, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > Are you sure? What *gms points to, that is, **gms, is freed, but *gms
> > > should still point to the same location. list
Previously, list_moved() only worked with non-empty lists, but this was a
caveat that was really easy to miss. parse_ofp_group_mod_file() had a bug
because it didn't honor that restriction. This commit fixes the problem,
by modifying the list_moved() interface to be harder to use incorrectly
and
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:33:05PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 01/28/15 at 01:22pm, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Are you sure? What *gms points to, that is, **gms, is freed, but *gms
> > should still point to the same location. list_moved() never
> > dereferences 'orig', only compares it against list-
On 01/28/15 at 01:22pm, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Are you sure? What *gms points to, that is, **gms, is freed, but *gms
> should still point to the same location. list_moved() never
> dereferences 'orig', only compares it against list->next. In a very
> language-lawyer way, working with a pointer to fr
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:22:00AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Ben, Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:19:53AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > > On 01/26/15 at 05:30pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:40
On 01/27/15 at 09:22am, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Ben, Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:19:53AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > > list_moved() not handling the list_empty() case is somewhat rude.
> > > Why not just handle that sp
Hi Ben, Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:19:53AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > On 01/26/15 at 05:30pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:40:49PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > * Although somewhat cure the appr
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 01/26/15 at 05:30pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:40:49PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > * Although somewhat cure the approach of setting the next field to NULL
> >
> > s/cure/crude/
> >
> > > seems far le
On 01/26/15 at 05:30pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:40:49PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > * Although somewhat cure the approach of setting the next field to NULL
>
> s/cure/crude/
>
> > seems far less dangerous than trying to update the list infrastructure
> > to handle
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:40:49PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> list_moved() appears to only work reliably if its argument is a non-empty
> list. This is because list_moved dereferences the next and prev fields
> of the list, which for an empty list are the address of the list itself,
> and list_mo
list_moved() appears to only work reliably if its argument is a non-empty
list. This is because list_moved dereferences the next and prev fields
of the list, which for an empty list are the address of the list itself,
and list_moved() is intended to be called when the address of the list has
change
11 matches
Mail list logo
