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

Re: [libvirt] [libvirt-glib] Prefer 'for' over 'while'



On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau
> <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
> >> Your changed version only has the same behaviour, if the user-passed-in
> >> function iter_func() never changes it->next, which you can't guarentee here.
> >> You need to keep the "next" copy.
> >
> > Yes, the for loop was changed to a while loop recently exactly for that
> > purpose:
> 
> I don't get it, your commit clearly introduced a hang in Boxes and my
> change fixes it back while also simplifying the code slightly. So I
> don't at all buy the 'while' being more 'reliable'.

The callback gets passed 'it', and the callback used in
gvir_config_object_delete_child can unlink/free 'it', so things won't work
as expected if you try to get it->next after calling the callback. Using a
while loop and getting it->next before calling the callback avoids this
problem.

Christophe

Attachment: pgpSRvVrrRQev.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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