On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances > is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However, > it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed falls > within boundaries. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/conf/numa_conf.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c > index 7bba4120b..5f0b3f9ed 100644 > --- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c > +++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c > @@ -1154,7 +1154,7 @@ virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa, > */ > if (!distances || > !distances[cellid].value || > - !numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances) > + node >= numa->nmem_nodes) If @distances can only be set if "node < numa->nmem_nodes", then how could "node >= numa->nmem_nodes" ever be true and @distances be non NULL? IOW: I see no need for the check... This former condition also trips across my "favorite" condition check of "if !intValue" substituting for "if intValue == 0" <sigh>. BTW: I do think there is a memory leak @distances entries are not VIR_FREE'd in virDomainNumaFree. I was looking for instances where ndistances maybe have been forgotten to be set to 0 even though distances was cleared. I can send a patch or you can for that if you want - IDC... There's a couple of other cleanups I'd like to see w/r/t using (!*ndistances) and how the @*distance are set to ldist/rdist outside of the if condition that allocated, but those are type A type things ;-) John > return (node == cellid) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE; > > return distances[cellid].value; > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
