On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:06:09 -0800
Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
s/array/callbacks array/ ?
> features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
>
> Since the corresponding names array elements were explicitly set
On 12/18/2019 01:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:18:45AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 12/18/2019 03:06 AM, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:18:45AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 12/18/2019 03:06 AM, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
> > features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
> >
> > Since the corresponding names array
On 12/18/2019 03:06 AM, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
Since the corresponding names array elements were explicitly set to
NULL, the uninitialized callback pointers
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:06:09AM -0800, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
> > features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
> >
> > Since the
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:06:09AM -0800, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
> features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
>
> Since the corresponding names array elements were explicitly set to
> NULL, the
Ensure that elements of the array that correspond to unavailable
features are set to NULL; previously, they would be left uninitialized.
Since the corresponding names array elements were explicitly set to
NULL, the uninitialized callback pointers would not actually be
dereferenced; however, the