On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:31:13AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> If you are testing for NULL data this means that variable could be
> NULL so avoid to access before the check to make sure the check is hit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> server/cursor-channel.c | 5 +++--
> server/dcc-send.c | 6 ++++--
> server/dcc.c | 2 +-
> server/display-channel.c | 6 +++---
> server/sound.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> server/stream.c | 3 ++-
> 6 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/server/cursor-channel.c b/server/cursor-channel.c
> index ab6864c..e91aac8 100644
> --- a/server/cursor-channel.c
> +++ b/server/cursor-channel.c
> @@ -227,12 +227,13 @@ static void cursor_channel_client_on_disconnect(RedChannelClient *rcc)
> static void red_marshall_cursor_init(RedChannelClient *rcc, SpiceMarshaller *base_marshaller,
> RedPipeItem *pipe_item)
> {
> + spice_assert(rcc);
> +
> CursorChannel *cursor_channel;
> CursorChannelClient *ccc = RCC_TO_CCC(rcc);
> SpiceMsgCursorInit msg;
> AddBufInfo info;
>
> - spice_assert(rcc);
I'd prefer
CursorChannelClient *ccc;
spice_assert(rcc);
ccc = RCC_TO_CCC(rcc);
ie keep the declaration grouped at the beginning of the block.
An additional comment is that some of the changes in here are candidates
for SPICE_UPCAST, which would make sense to be NULL-safe, so the code
could stay as is.
I was also wondering why we have macros with cryptic names rather than
actual accessors when doing non-upcast? Ie why DCC_TO_WORKER/DCC_TO_DC
rather than red_display_channel_client_get_channel()? (or even
red_channel_client_get_channel() if this makes sense inheritance-wise)
Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel