Go through root to get loading clients in StyleSheetContents::checkLoaded.

Go through root to get loading clients in StyleSheetContents::checkLoaded.

Added an assertion to the patch in https://codereview.chromium.org/444223004/

In StyleSheetContents::checkLoaded after parentStyleSheet check, "this pointer" is guaranteed to be equal to rootStyleSheet.
So we can only use this pointer instead of rootStyleSheet.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=179904

[haraken, 2014-08-08 08:52:44]

LGTM but Eliott should take a look.

[Mads Ager (chromium), 2014-08-08 08:54:26]

Thanks for digging into this!

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
File Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp:396: if
(root->m_loadingClients.isEmpty())
With the assert in place do you still want the access through root here or do
you just want to use m_loadingClients?

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp:408: copyToVector(root->m_loadingClients,
loadingClients);
ditto

[tasak, 2014-08-08 09:45:01]

Thank you for reviewing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
File Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp:396: if
(root->m_loadingClients.isEmpty())
On 2014/08/08 08:54:26, Mads Ager (chromium) wrote:
> With the assert in place do you still want the access through root here or do
> you just want to use m_loadingClients?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/456673002/diff/1/Source/core/css/StyleSheetCo...
Source/core/css/StyleSheetContents.cpp:408: copyToVector(root->m_loadingClients,
loadingClients);
On 2014/08/08 08:54:26, Mads Ager (chromium) wrote:
> ditto

Done.

[esprehn, 2014-08-09 06:37:48]

lgtm, but this is identical to the code that was already there?

[haraken, 2014-08-09 07:36:44]

On 2014/08/09 06:37:48, esprehn wrote:
> lgtm, but this is identical to the code that was already there?

Yes, the conclusion is that whether we add 'root->' or not makes no difference.
So we just added the ASSERT.

[tasak, 2014-08-11 04:09:37]

The CQ bit was checked by tasak@google.com

[tasak, 2014-08-11 04:09:49]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tasak@google.com

[tasak, 2014-08-11 04:12:36]

The CQ bit was checked by tasak@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 04:13:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tasak@google.com/456673002/10002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 04:16:44]

Change committed as 179904