On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 07:21:18AM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 09/07/2018 12:52 AM, John Ferlan wrote:On 09/06/2018 12:16 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:There is no need to check if @npaths is not zero. Let's qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths() handle that. Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> --- src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)At the cost of a possible unnecessary, but perhaps expensive call to qemuDomainGetPreservedMounts when npaths == 0?
Yes, this was exactly my reasoning when I touched this
Sure. But at least with my patch we are consistent. If it really bothers us, we can have a check at the beginning of qemuDomainNamespaceMknodPaths() and qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths(), right after namespace check to return early if npaths is zero.I think if you add a "filter" of npaths == 0, then return 0 in qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths, then that'd be a good thing...Okay.Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> John I also wonder if the : if (!qemuDomainNamespaceEnabled(vm, QEMU_DOMAIN_NS_MOUNT)) return 0; that's "duplicated" in qemuDomainNamespaceTeardownHostdev and qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths could be "reworked"...Oh sure it could. We have two sets of functions apparently: one does the check themselves and return early (e.g. qemuDomainNamespaceSetupDisk()) and the other leave it to qemuDomainNamespaceMknodPaths() to return return early (e.g. qemuDomainNamespaceSetupMemory()).
and I left the early check in some places for the same reason. (For other places, it might've been just an oversight) Jano
Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
