On 11/22/2017 04:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > 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. True, probably before we use it in distances too! So flip/flop the check and s/node/cellid/ John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
