On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:00:43 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 23.09.2012 13:51 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:30:50 +0200 > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> +static int dmi_shutdown(void *data) > >>> +{ > >>> + int i; > >>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dmistrings); i++) { > >>> + free(dmistrings[i]); > >> libflashrom allows calling programmer_init() and programmer_shutdown() > >> again after one flashrom run. For that case, we want the second run to > >> have zeroed dmistrings[i]. Please insert > >> dmistrings[i] = NULL; > > IIRC i even had this in first. it is not necessary though because they > > get overwritten by dmi_init() which gets called unconditionally by > > internal_init(). > > Yes, I saw that code too. I am just a bit uncomfortable with leaving > invalid non-null pointers around. me too, but i am also uncomfortable with adding redundant code. i have committed the patch including the nullifying code anyway in r1604, thanks. > > i am not convinced, that it is a good idea to null > > them anyway. note that the array is not initialized at startup either. > > I'm not happy about uninitialized static arrays. That said, I think we > could kill a few globals if there was a struct with private programmer > data, containing DMI strings, coreboot names, and other fun stuff. That > way we could initialize everything in one fell swoop. my guts tell me this sounds way better than it would actually work like :) -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
