On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:55:39PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...
> These two are not safe to remove. Look at the whole code block in
> question:
>
> if (diskVal->list == NULL)
> VIR_FREE(diskVal);
> else if (virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal) < 0) {
> diskVal = NULL;
> goto no_memory;
> }
> diskVal = NULL;
>
> In the case where virConfSetValue returned >= 0, we need to
> still set diskVal = NULL.
Oops. Thanks.
However, the original code is ugly enough that I have rewritten
it to make it clear that regardless of the virConfSetValue outcome,
we don't free that variable:
if (diskVal->list != NULL) {
bool err = (virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal) < 0);
diskVal = NULL;
if (err)
goto no_memory;
}
VIR_FREE(diskVal);
I prefer if it had the return value check separate from the assignment,
eg
int ret = virConfSetValue(conf, "disk", diskVal);
diskVal = NULL;
if (ret < 0)
goto no_memory;
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|