On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 05:24:18PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022, Ján Tomko wrote:
>
> > On a Friday in 2022, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> > > > I don't think so. Just like we've discussed under one patch of yours, a
> > > > function should either report error in all cases or none. And in case of
> > > > virProcessGetSchedInfo() the linux version does report error
> > >
> > > I see your point but there is also a bug in that function - not all error
> > > paths report errors. For example, !proc and !lines cases. We need to fix
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see a !proc error path in virProcessGetSchedInfo.
> >
>
> if (tid)
> proc = g_strdup_printf("/proc/%d/task/%d/sched", (int) pid, (int)
> tid);
> else
> proc = g_strdup_printf("/proc/%d/sched", (int) pid);
> if (!proc)
> return -1; <=== not reported
g_strdup_printf can't fail unless we mangled the printf format string
(which we havent), so that 'if (!proc)' check is redundant / unreachable
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
