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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Fixed NULL pointer check



On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 11:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 08:51:24AM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >> On 03/19/2012 08:43 AM, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>> At 03/18/2012 08:29 AM, Martin Kletzander Wrote:
> >>>> This patch fixes a NULL pointer check that was causing SegFault on
> >>>> some specific configurations.
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  src/util/conf.c |    5 ++++-
> >>>>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/src/util/conf.c b/src/util/conf.c
> >>>> index 8ad60e0..e76362c 100644
> >>>> --- a/src/util/conf.c
> >>>> +++ b/src/util/conf.c
> >>>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >>>>  /**
> >>>>   * conf.c: parser for a subset of the Python encoded Xen configuration files
> >>>>   *
> >>>> - * Copyright (C) 2006-2011 Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2006-2012 Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>   *
> >>>>   * See COPYING.LIB for the License of this software
> >>>>   *
> >>>> @@ -836,6 +836,9 @@ virConfGetValue(virConfPtr conf, const char *setting)
> >>>>  {
> >>>>      virConfEntryPtr cur;
> >>>>
> >>>> +    if (conf == NULL)
> >>>> +        return(NULL);
> >>>
> >>> Please use 'return NULL;' instead of 'return(NULL);'
> >>>
> >>> 'return(NULL);' is old style, and we donot use it now and later.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It seems weird to me too, it's just that it's almost everywhere in this
> >> file so that's why I wanted to keep the same look.
> > 
> > 
> > That is a historical remant. Do feel free to send another followup patch to
> > cleanup all the cases of 'return(NULL)' as well.
> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> Did you mean in that file or globally? Because I just tried the first
> thing that came to my mind and look at the output:
> 
> libvirt $ find . -name '*.[ch]' -type f -exec grep -nH -e \
> 'return(.*);' {} + | wc -l
> 852
> 
> Not that I wouldn't do it, it just seem as a pretty big change. On the
> other hand, I don't see the point in changing that in only one file.

IMHO, we should do this to make our code consistent, and ideally add a
syntax-check rule to prevent them coming back. Anyone disagree ?


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 :|


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