On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:23:29PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-10-18 14:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:15:47PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-10-17 15:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/hw/msi.c b/hw/msi.c
> >>>> index 3c7ebc3..9055155 100644
> >>>> --- a/hw/msi.c
> >>>> +++ b/hw/msi.c
> >>>> @@ -40,6 +40,14 @@
> >>>> /* Flag for interrupt controller to declare MSI/MSI-X support */
> >>>> bool msi_supported;
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void msi_unsupported(MSIMessage *msg)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + /* If we get here, the board failed to register a delivery handler. */
> >>>> + abort();
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +void (*msi_deliver)(MSIMessage *msg) = msi_unsupported;
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> How about we set this to NULL, and check it instead of the bool
> >>> flag?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah. I will introduce
> >>
> >> bool msi_supported(void)
> >> {
> >> return msi_deliver != msi_unsupported;
> >> }
> >>
> >> OK?
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >
> > Looks a bit weird ...
> > NULL is a pretty standard value for an invalid pointer, isn't it?
>
> Save us the runtime check and is equally expressive and readable IMHO.
>
> Jan
Do we need to check?
NULL dereference leads to a crash just as surely...
> --
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
