Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Fixing memory leaks in perf events parser

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Fixing memory leaks in perf events parser

[Markus Elfring]

> fix some memleaks in parse_events_term__sym_hw and parse_events_term__clone.

Can it be more appropriate to refer to the term “memory leak” in consistent ways?


> v1 ==> v2
> 1. split into two patches

Corresponding development consequences can become more interesting.


> v2 ==> v3
> add more commit log.
>
> Chen Wandun (1):
>   perf tools: fix potential memleak in perf events parser
>
> Cheng Jian (1):
>   perf tools: fix potential memleak in perf events parser
>
>  tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------

Are there any chances to make the change distinction a bit easier
by adjusting such commit subjects?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf tools: Fix potential memory leaks in perf events parser

[Markus Elfring]

> Fix memory leak of in function parse_events_term__sym_hw()
> and parse_events_term__clone() when string duplication failed.

Can a wording like “Fix memory leaks in …” be more appropriate for
the final commit message?
Would you find any other description variant more pleasing?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf tools: Fix potential memory leaks in perf events parser

[Markus Elfring]

> Fix potential memory leak. Function new_term may return error, so
> it is need to free memory when the return value is negative.

I hope that a typo will be avoided for the final commit message.
Would you find any other description variant more pleasing?

Regards,
Markus