Attention is currently required from: pespin.

View Change

1 comment:

• Patchset:

  • Patch Set #1:

    the iteartion is done precisely to avoid that kind of hacky checks whith assumptions regarding the c […]

    Yes, but lets see if we can cause any harm with the check:

    if fd->list.next is NULL, then the fd can not be registered, we return false. This can never be wrong. If there is a pointer in fd->list.next, even if it is just noise we have to go through the check, so everything is still fine.

    If fd->list.next is LLIST_POISON1, then the fd also can not be registered, we return false. When fd->list.next is LLIST_POISON! by coincidence due to not initializing the list, the fd also cannot be registered.

    I can not see any problem at the moment, other than the method is a bit hacky. Do you see a problem that I don't see here?

To view, visit change 32579. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.