On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:48:05PM +0800, harryxiyou wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > [...] > > Not necessary. virCommand is DESIGNED for streamlined usage, so that it > > is much easier to read how the command is constructed without being > > distracted by error checking in the caller every step of the way. As a > > virCommandPtr has no semantic impact until it is run, it is sufficient > > to delay error checking until the caller is actually ready to run the > > command. Therefore, we wrote virCommandRun() to specifically check for > > NULL, and report an error at that time, so that the caller need not > > worry about virCommandNew* returning NULL. > > > > No bug here. > > > > ACK. > However, we really need not do the following stuffs. It may affect > efficiencies. Maybe i have thought more about this matter. The question of efficiency is irrelevant in this context. We are explicitly choosing to prioritize reliability and readability of the code here. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list