On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:53:08AM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> > should probably just see if we're already at the end, which also covers
> > the single-element case. Like:
> >
> > if (!r->next)
> > return; /* we're already at the end */
>
> Hmm, I guess I wasn't familiar enough on the li
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:55:35AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 02:37:18PM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote:
>
> > Previously, when promisor_remote_move_to_tail() is called for a
> > promisor_remote which is currently the *only* element in promisors, a
> > cycle is created in the pr
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 02:37:18PM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> Previously, when promisor_remote_move_to_tail() is called for a
> promisor_remote which is currently the *only* element in promisors, a
> cycle is created in the promisors linked list. This cycle leads to a
> double free later on in
Previously, when promisor_remote_move_to_tail() is called for a
promisor_remote which is currently the *only* element in promisors, a
cycle is created in the promisors linked list. This cycle leads to a
double free later on in promisor_remote_clear(): promisors is set to
promisors->next (a no-op, a
4 matches
Mail list logo
