On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> What I'd suggest instead as a better and more durable cleanup would be
> to explicitly mention above the function's prototype that it must not
> be called with a null err pointer, and remove all "if (err)" or "err &&"
> tests so that we are consistent across the whole function. This way it
> will be easier to spot any offender. Because even if right now nobody
> calls it with a NULL, it suffices to read the first few lines to see
> the check being done and believe that it's permitted, so we do have a
> latent bug quietly waiting for a victim to pass by.

I also agree with this. Removing all if and "err &&" will make it much
more readable as long as it is clearly stated in the function
definition.

-- 
William

Reply via email to