On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:49:22PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:28 -0200
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:30:43PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > freeing resources in one place would require setting 'error'
> > > to not NULL, so add some more error reporting before jumping to
> > > exit branch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - add missing 'return -1' on exit if error is not NULL,
> > > Spotted-By: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > target-i386/cpu.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > index 3b9bbfe..fe8b76c 100644
> > > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > @@ -1550,13 +1550,14 @@ int cpu_x86_register(X86CPU *cpu, const char
> > > *cpu_model)
> > > model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_model, ",", 2);
> > > if (!model_pieces[0]) {
> > > - goto error;
> > > + goto out;
> >
> > Missing error_set*() call here.
> Thinking about this error path, it looks like it's unreachable, because of
> every caller of cpu_init() passes in not empty cpu_model.
Not empty, or just non-NULL? I just hit the check above using -cpu "".
Note that the above check catches both NULL and empty cpu_model strings,
because g_strsplit("", ...) returns an empty array.
> Perhaps it would make sense to just assert(cpu_model) at the beginning of
> function and delete this error check.
>
> >
> > The rest of the patch looks good, to me. I liked this style of handling
> > errors & freeing resources.
> >
> >
> [snip]
>
>
--
Eduardo
