[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [libvirt-glib 3/3] Correct return type of gvir_storage_pool_create_volume()



On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:49:28PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:53:29AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>  libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.c |    6 +++---
>> >>  libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.h |    4 ++--
>> >>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.c b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.c
>> >> index 5bd3f0a..bf25641 100644
>> >> --- a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.c
>> >> +++ b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-storage-pool.c
>> >> @@ -499,11 +499,11 @@ GList *gvir_storage_pool_get_volumes(GVirStoragePool *pool)
>> >>   *
>> >>   * Return value: (transfer full): the #GVirStorageVol, or NULL
>> >>   */
>> >> -GVirStoragePool *gvir_storage_pool_get_volume(GVirStoragePool *pool,
>> >> -                                              const gchar *name)
>> >> +GVirStorageVol *gvir_storage_pool_get_volume(GVirStoragePool *pool,
>> >> +                                             const gchar *name)
>> >>  {
>> >>      GVirStoragePoolPrivate *priv = pool->priv;
>> >> -    GVirStoragePool *volume;
>> >> +    GVirStorageVol *volume;
>> >>
>> >>      g_mutex_lock(priv->lock);
>> >>      volume = g_hash_table_lookup(priv->volumes, name);
>> >
>> > Might be worth adding a g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_IS_STORAGE_VOL(volume))
>> > here when volume is non NULL ?
>>
>>   We don't put anything other than volumes to this hashtable so there
>> is no need AFAICT.
>
> Well, we were mistakenly casting its content to the wrong type, who knows
> which other mistakes we will be doing in the future? I was just asking if
> it's worth adding this check as a way to catch future bugs.

  That mistake was immediately caught as soon as I used this function
in Boxes, so a warning on console would not have helped anything.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]