On 11/22/2017 04:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 11/22/2017 12:22 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However, it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed falls within boundaries.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/conf/numa_conf.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c index 7bba4120b..5f0b3f9ed 100644 --- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c @@ -1154,7 +1154,7 @@ virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa, */ if (!distances || !distances[cellid].value || - !numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances) + node >= numa->nmem_nodes)
If @distances can only be set if "node < numa->nmem_nodes", then how could "node >= numa->nmem_nodes" ever be true and @distances be non NULL? IOW: I see no need for the check... This former condition also trips across my "favorite" condition check of "if !intValue" substituting for "if intValue == 0" <sigh>.
Ah right. This patch makes no sense. I don't even know what was I thinking :-)
But now as I'm looking at the code, it might be worth to check if @cellid < numa->nmem_nodes; We check @node but not @cellid.
True, probably before we use it in distances too! So flip/flop the check and s/node/cellid/ John