[PATCH 11/25] network: use g_free() in place of remaining VIR_FREE()
Peter Krempa
pkrempa at redhat.com
Thu Jun 25 07:55:28 UTC 2020
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 23:34:00 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine at redhat.com>
> ---
> src/network/bridge_driver.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver.c b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
> index 668aa9ca88..a1b2f5b6c7 100644
> --- a/src/network/bridge_driver.c
> +++ b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
[...]
> @@ -706,7 +706,8 @@ networkStateInitialize(bool privileged,
>
> network_driver->lockFD = -1;
> if (virMutexInit(&network_driver->lock) < 0) {
> - VIR_FREE(network_driver);
> + g_free(network_driver);
> + network_driver = NULL;
> goto error;
In general I'm agains senseless replacement of VIR_FREE for g_free.
There is IMO no value to do so. VIR_FREE is now implemented via
g_clear_pointer(&ptr, g_free) so g_free is actually used.
Mass replacements are also substrate for adding bugs and need to be
approached carefully, so doing this en-mass might lead to others
attempting the same with possibly less care.
In general, mass replacements should be done only to
g_clear_pointer(&ptr, g_free)
and I'm not sure it's worth it.
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list