Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Don't retest sections in "Object code reading"

[James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>]

On 07/10/2025 9:01 pm, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:10:12AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>> On 06/10/2025 4:21 pm, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 6:11 AM James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> +       data = zalloc(sizeof(*data));
>>>> +       if (!data)
>>>> +               return true;
> 
>>>> +       data->addr = addr;
>>>> +       strlcpy(data->path, path, sizeof(data->path));
>   
>>> nit: perhaps strdup rather than having 4kb per tested_section.
> 
>> Oh yeah that would have been better, not sure why I didn't do it that way.
>> Although the max sections I saw was around 50, and it's usually a lot less
>> so it's probably not worth the churn to change it now that Arnaldo's applied
>> it?
> 
> I see you submitted a patch for using strdup() and then there is a need
> for checking the strdup(), etc.
> 
> Since at this point this is an improvement on a test and all is sitting
> in linux-next and the window is closing for v6.18, lets leave this for
> the next window, ok?
> 

Makes sense.

> These would be good things for some tool to catch, before it gets sent,
> but that is another rabbit hole :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Arnaldo

Does Smatch work on Perf? I imagine it would catch this if it does. Or 
just plain old cppcheck. I'll take a look.

James