On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 10:27:38PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 07/02/2011 08:55 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: > >> From 577ac7e8594cbcccb59653786e80c3916a3238cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >From: Wen Congyang<wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 06:41:18 +0800 > >Subject: [PATCH] initialize pointer to NULL > > > >def and cmd is not initialized to NULL, but we try to freed it if we > >meet some > >error. It's very dangerous. > > Well, really it's not necessary to initialize def to NULL, because > VIR_ALLOC(def) is always called before any point in the code that > might goto the error label. So by the time you could get any error, > def is already either a valid pointer, or NULL. > > cmd definitely *does* need to be initialized to NULL, though, > because it doesn't get VIR_ALLOCed until after the check for failure > of VIR_ALLOC(def) (and resulting goto no_memory). > > ACK on initializing cmd. Whether or not to initialize def is a > matter of style. I prefer not, but others may prefer to do it just > in case code is added in the future that causes a jump that bypasses > VIR_ALLOC(def). Okay, ACK, I just commited the initialization for cmd, thanks ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list