[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 03/11] s390x/cpumodel: Fix harmless misuse of visit_check_str
|
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 03/11] s390x/cpumodel: Fix harmless misuse of visit_check_struct() |
|
Date: |
Mon, 4 May 2020 17:29:38 +0200 |
On Mon, 04 May 2020 17:24:59 +0200
Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:51:04 +0200
> > Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > On 24.04.20 21:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Commit e47970f51d "s390x/cpumodel: Fix query-cpu-model-FOO error API
> >> >> violations" neglected to change visit_end_struct()'s Error ** argument
> >> >> along with the others. If visit_end_struct() failed, we'd take the
> >> >
> >> > s/visit_end_struct/visit_check_struct/ ?
> >>
> >> Will fix.
> >>
> >> >> success path. Fortunately, it can't fail here:
> >> >> qobject_input_check_struct() checks we consumed the whole dictionary,
> >> >> and to get here, we did. Fix it anyway.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIKs, if visit_check_struct() failed, we'd still do the memcopy, but
> >> > also report the error. Not nice, not bad.
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >
> > Will you queue this, or shall I queue it?
>
> Me taking the complete series through my tree would be easiest for me.
> But I can cope with other maintainers picking up bits.
In that case, have my
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
and feel free to pick up :)