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 >
Oh and no, the second version of the patch makes the second remove a no-op. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
