On 03/12/2011 02:20 PM, Bill Spitzak wrote: > On 03/12/2011 04:28 AM, Marty Jack wrote: >> I have never encountered a system where it was believed to be desirable to >> allow something to be removed twice. It is important to keep data >> structures clean. If anything you would be more likely to see a debugging >> mode where the lists were fully checked after every insert or remove to make >> sure they are internally consistent, especially if they are important to >> keeping the system running. It's not that much different from memory >> allocation. A block is allocated, or it is free, and a double free is a bug. > > Making it crash at the moment the second remove is attempted is better than > it leaving the data corrupted and crashing later. It makes it a lot easier to > find out why it went wrong. > > I think that is what the newest version of the patch is doing, right? > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel >
Yes definitely, but I still contend we need to understand where the first remove happens and it becomes a dangling reference. Or, if it's the case that some of these blocks are in a list and some not, I would claim a better design is to tag them explicitly. This is nature's way of telling me I should read the rest of the code that I haven't yet so I understand what is going on. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
