On 11/22/2017 12:22 AM, John Ferlan wrote: > > > 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>. Ah right. This patch makes no sense. I don't even know what was I thinking :-) But now as I'm looking at the code, it might be worth to check if @cellid < numa->nmem_nodes; We check @node but not @cellid. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
