[libvirt] Fw: Re: [PATCH 4/6] util: netdev: use VIR_AUTOCLOSE instead of VIR_FORCE_CLOSE

[Shi Lei]

On 2018-09-12 at 16:25, Shi Lei wrote:
On 2018-09-12 at 15:21, Erik Skultety wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:37:45PM +0800, Shi Lei wrote:
>> On 2018-09-11 at 20:44, Erik Skultety wrote:
>> >On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:47:53AM +0800, Shi Lei wrote:
>> >> By making use of GNU C's cleanup attribute handled by the VIR_AUTOCLOSE macro,
>> >> many of the VIR_FORCE_CLOSE calls can be dropped, which in turn leads to
>> >> getting rid of many of our cleanup sections.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Shi Lei <shi_lei at massclouds.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  static int
>> >> @@ -909,9 +867,9 @@ char *virNetDevGetName(int ifindex)
>> >>  #if defined(SIOCGIFINDEX) && defined(HAVE_STRUCT_IFREQ)
>> >>  int virNetDevGetIndex(const char *ifname, int *ifindex)
>> >>  {
>> >> -    int ret = -1;
>> >>      struct ifreq ifreq;
>> >> -    int fd = socket(VIR_NETDEV_FAMILY, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
>> >> +    VIR_AUTOCLOSE(fd);
>> >> +    socket(VIR_NETDEV_FAMILY, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
>> >
>> >^this could not potentially work...
>> >
>> >Erik
>>
>> Sorry! I'm too careless.
>>
>> I think that a new syntax-check rule might make sense.
>> This rule checks below:
>>
>> type foo(a0, a1 ...);
>>
>> [type] var = foo(a0, a1, ...);  /* It's OK */
>> ignore_value(foo(a0, a1, ...)); /* It's OK */
>>
>> foo(a0, a1, ...); /* Report this usage */
>
>but this would go away with the syntax-check rule you proposed in you response
>to the first patch? If not, then would you be more specific to help me
>understand the problem more?
>
>Thanks,
>Erik

Sorry! I was muddle-headed last night.

It is not the syntax-check rule in my response to the first patch.
This is another rule and I wanted to introduce it to avoid some faults then.
Today I find that it is not easy as I thought.
Please ignore it ...  :-)

Shi Lei

>
>>
>> And it takes effect before compilation and even it's in the inactive
>> side of the #if-#else conditons.
>>
>> It would not check macros since their name are upper case and
>> we don't care for the function as condition in if-else statement.
>>
>> How about it?
>> And I can try it if it's a bit helpful ...
>>
>> Shi Lei
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> libvir-list mailing list
>> libvir-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list