On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 07:21:18AM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 09/07/2018 12:52 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/2018 12:16 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> There is no need to check if @npaths is not zero. Let's
>> qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths() handle that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
>> ---
>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>
> At the cost of a possible unnecessary, but perhaps expensive call to
> qemuDomainGetPreservedMounts when npaths == 0?
Yes, this was exactly my reasoning when I touched this
Sure. But at least with my patch we are consistent. If it really
bothers
us, we can have a check at the beginning of
qemuDomainNamespaceMknodPaths() and qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths(),
right after namespace check to return early if npaths is zero.
>
> I think if you add a "filter" of npaths == 0, then return 0 in
> qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths, then that'd be a good thing...
>
Okay.
>
> Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com>
>
> John
>
> I also wonder if the :
>
> if (!qemuDomainNamespaceEnabled(vm, QEMU_DOMAIN_NS_MOUNT))
> return 0;
>
> that's "duplicated" in qemuDomainNamespaceTeardownHostdev and
> qemuDomainNamespaceUnlinkPaths could be "reworked"...
>
Oh sure it could. We have two sets of functions apparently: one does the
check themselves and return early (e.g. qemuDomainNamespaceSetupDisk())
and the other leave it to qemuDomainNamespaceMknodPaths() to return
return early (e.g. qemuDomainNamespaceSetupMemory()).
and I left the early check in some places for the same reason.
(For other places, it might've been just an oversight)
Jano
Michal
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list