Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] util: Alter return value of virReadFCHost and fix mem leak

>> VIR_FREE() would have to be done at the top of the function; otherwise, >> how does the caller distinguish which error occurred when -1 gets >> returned and whether it should VIR_FREE itself? >> > > Well, I have to admin that this^^ is a fair argument because there are 3 > different spots where the function can fail, not that the caller could not > check result for NULL but the fact that a function touched caller's argument > and then failed would be just weird. So, yeah, good point. > I actually thought this was the "more compelling" reason, but seeing as there's no other feedback - I'll make the simple patch for having the VIR_FREE() in virReadFCHost, adjust the comments, and move on. John