[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 5:09 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, missed that somehow. :) Sent another fix for the infinite loop,
please check it out.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124


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