On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:55:39PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > These two are not safe to remove. Look at the whole code block in
> > question:
> >
> > if (diskVal->list == NULL)
> > VIR_FREE(diskVal);
> > else if (virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal) < 0) {
> > diskVal = NULL;
> > goto no_memory;
> > }
> > diskVal = NULL;
> >
> > In the case where virConfSetValue returned >= 0, we need to
> > still set diskVal = NULL.
>
> Oops. Thanks.
>
> However, the original code is ugly enough that I have rewritten
> it to make it clear that regardless of the virConfSetValue outcome,
> we don't free that variable:
>
> if (diskVal->list != NULL) {
> bool err = (virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal) < 0);
> diskVal = NULL;
> if (err)
> goto no_memory;
> }
> VIR_FREE(diskVal);
I prefer if it had the return value check separate from the assignment,
eg
int ret = virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal);
diskVal = NULL;
if (ret < 0)
goto no_memory;
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list