On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 01:28:31PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > With the split out database, the RNG schema will no longer
>> > be installed by the code, instead it will be distributed
>> > as part of the database. Thus we should look in the database
>> > locations to find the schema.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > po/POTFILES.in | 1 +
>> > tools/Makefile.am | 2 +-
>> > tools/osinfo-db-util.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > tools/osinfo-db-util.h | 7 +++++++
>> > tools/osinfo-db-validate.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>> > 5 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> [snip]
>
>> > + for (i = 0; i < npaths; i++) {
>> > + ret = g_file_resolve_relative_path(paths[i], file);
>> > + if (g_file_query_exists(ret, NULL))
>> > + break;
>> > + g_object_unref(ret);
>> > + ret = NULL;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (!ret) {
>>
>> This is just my personal preference, but I really would like to have
>> explicit comparisons in all cases that you're not checking against a
>> boolean. But feel free to ignore, probably there are a lot of other
>> places doing the same.
>
> IMHO this is pretty standard style for checking pointers for NULL
> status.
FWIW, I also prefer being explicit here.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
