On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 12.06.2015 12:09, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >+void block_job_txn_add_job(BlockJobTxn *txn, BlockJob *job)
> >+{
> >+ if (!txn) {
> >+ return;
> >+ }
>
> Do you plan on making use of this case? I'm asking because while I'm usually
> in favor of handling everything gracefully as long as it's easy to
> implement, here I can't think of a case where using NULL with this function
> makes sense, that is to me it would seem like the caller made some bad
> mistake. This in turn would mean that dereferencing a NULL pointer or
> failing an assertion were preferable to hiding that mistake.
>
> Other than this small thing and that it doesn't compile (until patch 7, I
> presume), looks good.Yes. It is used by backup_start(), which may be called with txn == NULL by do_drive_backup() from qmp_drive_backup(). It means that blockjob code never needs to check whether it is running inside a transaction or not. Blockjob code always calls add_job() and prepare_to_complete() regardless. Stefan
pgpaVH8dkk8cF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
