[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] blockjob: remove unnecessary check
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] blockjob: remove unnecessary check |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:12:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 |
On 19/04/2017 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
>> bool block_job_user_paused(BlockJob *job)
>> {
> Is it worth using some form of attribute((nonnull)) annotations on
> various functions, to both state our intentions and let compilers help
> us catch obvious places where we are violating our intentions? That's
> more of a generic question to all of qemu, and doesn't affect your
> particular patch, other than your patch is an instance where the
> annotation would be useful if we wanted to use them.
What kind of bug would the compiler catch? I suppose Coverity would
catch all of them, and maybe -flto would as well.
Paolo
>> - return job ? job->user_paused : 0;
>> + return job->user_paused;
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for 2.10 00/11] Preparation for block job mutex, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/11] blockjob: introduce block_job_early_fail, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/11] blockjob: introduce block_job_pause/resume_all, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/11] blockjob: group BlockJob transaction functions together, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/11] blockjob: strengthen a bit test-blockjob-txn, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/11] blockjob: introduce block_job_cancel_async, check iostatus invariants, Paolo Bonzini, 2017/04/19