On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 15:29 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 11/29/2010 03:16 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > This notation is a little more user friendly and applies to information about removable, readonly and rotational devices
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > misc-utils/lsblk.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/misc-utils/lsblk.c b/misc-utils/lsblk.c
> > index 6c5a205..a8c29a6 100644
> > --- a/misc-utils/lsblk.c
> > +++ b/misc-utils/lsblk.c
> > @@ -504,6 +504,24 @@ static void probe_device(struct blkdev_cxt *cxt)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > +static int is_removable_device(struct blkdev_cxt *cxt)
> > +{
> > + char *str = NULL;
>
> Assigning NULL is not necessary here.
>
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + str = sysfs_strdup(cxt, "removable");
> > +
> > + if (!str && cxt->parent)
> > + str = sysfs_strdup(cxt->parent, "removable");
> > +
> > + if (str) {
> > + ret = atoi(str);
>
> ato*() functions are obsolete, we probably should use strtol() instead.
>
Obsolete? Not sure about that. It doesn't detect errors, as opposed to
strtol, but in this case str will always be either "0" or "1" so it
should be OK to use.
> > + free(str);
>
> free(NULL) is safe.
>
Yes, but we have to test str for NULL anyways, why not include the free
there, once we get the ret value? This way we save an unnecessary call.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
