On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 08:26:41PM +0200, Tim Duesterhus wrote: > Willy, > > Am 12.09.20 um 18:52 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it as I too hate having > > a named type in calloc, as it doesn't survive code changes over time. > > > > I'd rather have one patch to fix the known bug and the rest as a > > cleanup patch however, so that we can backport the fix wherever > > needed without risking to break something subtle by accident. Just > > let me know if that's OK for you, otherwise I'll take care of slicing > > your patch next week. > > > > Okay. I've split it into 2 patches.
Great, now applied, thank you! > Checking out the blame for the BUG was fun. Apparently it's the > second time I fixed this exact issue. I'm not surprised. This type of practice is common and sometimes even needed (e.g. when you put the output into a void*), so some people tend to be more used to it than to the other. > I'm already seeing Ilya suggesting that we add Coccinelle to the CI pipeline > in response to this :-) That could be an idea, indeed. I seldom run coccinelle on the code when I spot an ugly bug that's easy to search at other places, but I don't think about doing it often. We need to be reasonable so that we don't have yet-another series of low importance reports to deal with that require code changes just to silence a low-threshold detector. That's always the difficult part. Cheers, Willy
