Hi Guomin,

Thanks for point the commit below to me. I agree that the change is functionally the same, and I am also with Sean that the local variable seems redundant. But is there other reason we used this local variable in the first place? I thought the first implementation did not have it.

Thanks,

Kun

From: Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang@intel.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:21 PM
To: Kun Qin <Kun.Qin@microsoft.com>; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UnitTestFrameworkPkg/UnitTestLib: Correct dereferred pointer.

Hi Qin,

Refer https://github.com/guominjia/edk2/commit/eed5154853f6522e6150b9cff16d24e0c88ad3cc

Best Regards

guomin

From: Kun Qin <Kun.Qin@microsoft.com>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang@intel.com>; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UnitTestFrameworkPkg/UnitTestLib: Correct dereferred pointer.

Hi Guomin,

Could you please point me to the proposed change?

Thanks,

Kun

From: Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 6:30 PM
To: Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Kun Qin <Kun.Qin@microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UnitTestFrameworkPkg/UnitTestLib: Correct dereferred pointer.

Hi Sean,

I think it meet the original code logic more closely.

According to the LoadUnitTestCache(), it need pointer to pointer, the defect is resulted by pointer to local pointer and I think the original logical just want use the local variable as pointer to pointer.

I have reviewed the suggested change and think both are the same logic.

Hi Qin,

Can you give some comment?

Best Regards

guomin

From: sean.brogan via [] <sean.brogan=microsoft.com@[]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 2:00 PM
To: Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UnitTestFrameworkPkg/UnitTestLib: Correct dereferred pointer.

Guomin,

Can you speak to why you implemented differently than the suggested and validated patch?  Seems you created a local whereas ours just used the internal data member.  

Thanks
sean