> On Jun 13, 2024, at 10:04, Shiqi Zhu <hiccup...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 01:36, Zhao Zhili <quinkbl...@foxmail.com > <mailto:quinkbl...@foxmail.com>> wrote: >> >> From: Zhao Zhili <zhiliz...@tencent.com> >> >> The check should be >= 0, not > 0. The check itself is redundant >> since uninit only being called after init is success. >> --- >> tests/checkasm/checkasm.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/checkasm/checkasm.c b/tests/checkasm/checkasm.c >> index 28237b4d25..bbcc90f91f 100644 >> --- a/tests/checkasm/checkasm.c >> +++ b/tests/checkasm/checkasm.c >> @@ -814,8 +814,7 @@ static int bench_init(void) >> static void bench_uninit(void) >> { >> #if CONFIG_LINUX_PERF >> - if (state.sysfd > 0) >> - close(state.sysfd); >> + close(state.sysfd); > > Is this better? > > if (state.sysfd >= 0) { > close(state.sysfd); > state.sysfd = -1; > }
I don’t think there is a requirement on reentrancy in this case. > >> #endif >> } >> >> -- >> 2.42.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org <mailto:ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email >> ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org> >> with subject "unsubscribe". > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org <mailto:ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org> with > subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
