Don't compare a non-existing function with NULL
PATCH 1/1 Don't compare a non-existing function with NULL
Obviously someone forgot something here or didn't use -ansi. Either way, index is nowhere declared so I assume the current behaviour is to check against the index() function coming from somewhere in the POSIX headers. The comparison doesn't make sense then.
--- libudev/libudev-queue-private.c | 2 -- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
libudev/libudev-queue-private.c +0 -2
@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ static struct queue_devpaths *build_index(struct udev_queue_export *udev_queue_ereturn NULL ; } devpaths =calloc (1 ,sizeof (struct queue_devpaths ) + (range +1 ) *sizeof (long )); -if (index ==NULL ) -return NULL ; devpaths->devpaths_size = range +1 ;/* read all records and populate the table */
Quoted 2 lines · Daniel Mierswa
Obviously someone forgot something here or didn't use -ansi.
Guilty as charged.
Quoted 4 lines
Either way,
index is nowhere declared so I assume the current behaviour is to check against theindex()function coming from somewhere in the POSIX headers. The comparison doesn't make sense then.
devpaths = calloc(1, sizeof(struct queue_devpaths) + (range + 1) *
sizeof(long));
- if (index = NULL)
- return NULL;
devpaths->devpaths_size = range + 1;
nak. The intention would have been to catch an "out of memory error" when allocating devpaths. It should make sense if you replace "index" with "devpaths" on that line instead,
Thanks for spotting this
Alan
Quoted 3 lines · Alan Jenkins
nak. The intention would have been to catch an "out of memory error" when allocating devpaths. It should make sense if you replace "index" with "devpaths" on that line instead,
done
New patch attached.
From 52311df17535588c767e64be55116c8f5f14c473 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Mierswa <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:59:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't compare a non-existing function with NULL
Obviously someone forgot something here or didn't use -ansi. Either way, index is nowhere declared so I assume the current behaviour is to check against the index() function coming from somewhere in the POSIX headers. The comparison doesn't make sense then.
--- libudev/libudev-queue-private.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
libudev/libudev-queue-private.c +1 -1
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static struct queue_devpaths *build_index(struct udev_queue_export *udev_queue_ereturn NULL ; } devpaths =calloc (1 ,sizeof (struct queue_devpaths ) + (range +1 ) *sizeof (long )); -if (index ==NULL ) +if (devpaths ==NULL )return NULL ; devpaths->devpaths_size = range +1 ;
Signature · 1 line
1.6.4
Kay Sievers
AppliedQuoted 7 lines · Daniel Mierswa
Quoted 3 lines · Alan Jenkins
nak. The intention would have been to catch an "out of memory error" when allocating devpaths. It should make sense if you replace "index" with "devpaths" on that line instead,
done
New patch attached.
Applied.
Thanks,
Kay