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@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 :|