On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:44:47PM +0400, malc wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > 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...
> >
>
> Not universally (not on AIX for instance (read)).
This is a NULL function call though :)
Anyway, this was just nitpicking. Do it any way you like.
> --
> mailto:av1474@xxxxxxxx
--
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
