On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 08:18:30 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
In subject: Static is not the same as stack allocated.
> Rather than use static/stack state context pointers, let's allocate and
same here.
> free the state context pointer. In doing so, we'll shrink the code a bit
> since many routines perform the same initialization sequence.
Fair point in removing duplicity, but you did not justify the change
from stack allocated to heap allocated, just explained it.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c | 136 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c b/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
> index 4e82232..37375c0 100644
> --- a/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
> +++ b/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
> @@ -224,6 +224,42 @@ virStorageBackendRBDCloseRADOSConn(virStorageBackendRBDStatePtr ptr)
> time(0) - ptr->starttime);
> }
>
> +
> +static void
> +virStorageBackendRBDFreeStateContext(virStorageBackendRBDStatePtr *ptr)
The word "Context" seems a bit unnecessary in the name.
> +{
> + if (!*ptr)
> + return;
> +
> + virStorageBackendRBDCloseRADOSConn(*ptr);
> +
> + VIR_FREE(*ptr);
> +}
> +
> +
> +static virStorageBackendRBDStatePtr
> +virStorageBackendRBDAllocStateContext(virConnectPtr conn,
> + virStoragePoolObjPtr pool)
Same here. Also I think we prefer the word "New" instead of "Alloc"
> +{
> + virStorageBackendRBDStatePtr ptr;
> +
> + if (VIR_ALLOC(ptr) < 0)
> + return NULL;
ACK
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list