> >> VIR_FREE() would have to be done at the top of the function; otherwise,
> >> how does the caller distinguish which error occurred when -1 gets
> >> returned and whether it should VIR_FREE itself?
> >>
> >
> > Well, I have to admin that this^^ is a fair argument because there are 3
> >
On 10/12/2016 10:49 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:20:29AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 05:25:49PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357416
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:20:29AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 05:25:49PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357416
> >>
> >> Rather than return a 0 or -1 and the *result string,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357416
Rather than return a 0 or -1 and the *result string, return just the result
string to the caller. Alter all the callers to handle the different return.
As a side effect or result of this, it's much clearer that we cannot just
assign the
