On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:03:11PM +0800, Osier Yang wrote:
On 2012年03月21日 01:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>From: "Daniel P. Berrange"<berrange(a)redhat.com>
>@@ -70,8 +84,7 @@ virURIFormat(virURIPtr uri)
> char *ret;
>
> /* First check: does it make sense to do anything */
>- if (uri != NULL&&
>- uri->server != NULL&&
>+ if (uri->server != NULL&&
> strchr(uri->server, ':') != NULL) {
>
> backupserver = uri->server;
>@@ -82,7 +95,12 @@ virURIFormat(virURIPtr uri)
> }
>
> ret = (char *) xmlSaveUri(uri);
>+ if (!ret) {
>+ virReportOOMError();
>+ goto cleanup;
>+ }
>
>+cleanup:
The cleanup label doesn't make any sense. Or it's for follow up
pacthes use? but it should be together with the follow up patch
if so.
I think it is preferrable to always have an explicit cleanup:
statement in this scenario, rather than relying on fallthrough.
It avoids future code additionals introducing cleanup bugs.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|