On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
> We already know q!=NULL at that point, no need to retest.
>
Right, and even if it was ==NULL then 'free(NULL)' is guaranteed to be a
NOP, so it would still be fine.
Reviewed-by: Jesper Juhl
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
> ---
>
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
We already know q!=NULL at that point, no need to retest.
Right, and even if it was ==NULL then 'free(NULL)' is guaranteed to be a
NOP, so it would still be fine.
Reviewed-by: Jesper Juhl j...@chaosbits.net
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
We already know q!=NULL at that point, no need to retest.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c b/tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c
index ee2992e..64a2550 100644
--- a/tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c
+++
We already know q!=NULL at that point, no need to retest.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com
---
tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c b/tools/kvm/disk/qcow.c
index ee2992e..64a2550 100644
---
4 matches
Mail list logo