n Wed, 2016-01-27 at 10:49 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:41:15 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
Commit 871e10f fixed a memory corruption error, but called strlen() twice on the same string to do so. Even though the compiler is probably smart enough to optimize the second call away, having a single invocation makes the code slightly cleaner. Suggested-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- How about this? :) src/util/virnetdevopenvswitch.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/util/virnetdevopenvswitch.c b/src/util/virnetdevopenvswitch.c index db01dcf..9283bbb 100644 --- a/src/util/virnetdevopenvswitch.c +++ b/src/util/virnetdevopenvswitch.c @@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ int virNetDevOpenvswitchRemovePort(const char *brname ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, const ch int virNetDevOpenvswitchGetMigrateData(char **migrate, const char *ifname) { virCommandPtr cmd = NULL; + size_t len; int ret = -1; cmd = virCommandNewArgList(OVSVSCTL, "--timeout=5", "--if-exists", "get", "Interface", @@ -223,8 +224,9 @@ int virNetDevOpenvswitchGetMigrateData(char **migrate, const char *ifname) } /* Wipeout the newline, if it exists */ - if (strlen(*migrate) > 0) - (*migrate)[strlen(*migrate) - 1] = '\0'; Or just if (**migrate) (*migrate)[strlen(*migrate) - 1] = '\0'; (or similar check for the first character in *migrate) since we only need to check if it's empty or not :-)
Yeah, that would work just as nicely, and would even save us the call to strlen() altogether when the string is empty. However, I'd argue that it makes the code a tiny bit more opaque rather than a tiny bit cleaner, so I'd still go with the version I posted if that's okay with you :) Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team