On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:47:53AM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Kletzander [mailto:mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:24 PM > > To: Chen Hanxiao > > Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] lxc: do cleanup when failed to create new > string > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:31:03PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote: > > > From: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > src/lxc/lxc_process.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c > > > index c51c4d5..fc399fb 100644 > > > --- a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c > > > +++ b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c > > > @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ int virLXCProcessStart(virConnectPtr conn, > > > > > > if (virAsprintf(&logfile, "%s/%s.log", > > > cfg->logDir, vm->def->name) < 0) > > > - return -1; > > > + goto cleanup; > > > > > > > I see nothing in that cleanup that needs to be done in this codepath. > > The only thing which might be needed is cleaning up the > > vm->def->resource, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Can you > > explain the change? > > > > But the code structure looks weird. > We have already used 'cleanup' before this section. > I'd rather see either a) the two previous gotos changed into returns (which means using a cleanup only where it needs to be done) or b) using cleanups everywhere, but this doesn't go with what we use elsewhere and the cleanup in this section is *really* huge, so it's unnecessary to go there, I guess. Anyway, me not ACKing it doesn't mean someone else can't agree with you, I just wanted to know the reason (whether there have been a leak or something). Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list