Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] uml_conf.c: don't return an uninitialized pointer

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: ...

...

Actually I did that first, but then un-did it in favor of the change above. Why? because that initialization could mask a failure to initialize in a new case.

With per-case initialization, we'd detect the bug at compile/static-analysis time. With the up-front unconditional initialization, we cannot, and would have to rely on testing to find it.

It is a tradeoff, but I still prefer the initialization at time of declaration as a safety net, and we do use this pattern pretty much everywhere

Ok. adjusted