On Thu, Sep 09 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> When the launchctl_boot_plist() function was added in >> a16eb6b1ff3 (maintenance: skip bootout/bootstrap when plist is >> registered, 2021-08-24), an unused call to launchctl_get_uid() was >> added along with it. That call appears to have been copy/pasted from >> launchctl_boot_plist(). >> >> Since we can remove that, we can also get rid of the "result" >> variable, whose only purpose was allow for the free() between its >> assignment and the return. That pattern also appears to have been >> copy/pasted from launchctl_boot_plist(). > > I don't find the most crucial information in that commit message: what is > the fall-out of the removal of this call? > > Such an analysis (_with_ a summary of it in the commit message) is > definitely required. And it should not be left as an exercise for the > reader. Do you mean an assurance to the reader that the removed code doesn't have any side-effects? E.g. an addition of As the patch shows the returned value wasn't used at all in this function, the launchctl_get_uid() function itself just calls xstrfmt() and getuid(), neither of which have any subtle global side-effects, so this removal is safe. ?