Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/17] target-i386: cpu_x86_init(): move error handling to end of function

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:08:01PM +0800, li guang wrote:
> 在 2012-11-12一的 19:38 -0200，Eduardo Habkost写道：
> > Doing error handling on a single place will make it easier to make sure
> > memory is freed, and that error information is properly printed or
> > returned to the caller.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  target-i386/cpu.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > index 73b0fa1..69f1204 100644
> > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > @@ -1506,17 +1506,20 @@ X86CPU *cpu_x86_init(const char *cpu_model)
> >      env->cpu_model_str = cpu_model;
> >  
> >      if (cpu_x86_register(cpu, cpu_model) < 0) {
> > -        object_delete(OBJECT(cpu));
> > -        return NULL;
> > +        goto error;
> >      }
> >  
> >      x86_cpu_realize(OBJECT(cpu), &error);
> >      if (error) {
> > -        error_free(error);
> > -        object_delete(OBJECT(cpu));
> > -        return NULL;
> > +        goto error;
> >      }
> >      return cpu;
> > +error:
> 
> seems we should not use lable 'error' as it's 
> the same name with variable 'error'

Do you know any compiler that complains about that? I don't find this to
be a problem at all.

> 
> hmm, maybe I should send a patch to clarify.
>  
> 
> > +    object_delete(OBJECT(cpu));
> > +    if (error) {
> > +        error_free(error);
> > +    }
> > +    return NULL;
> >  }
> >  
> >  #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> 
> -- 
> regards!
> li guang                  
> linux kernel team at FNST, china
> 
> thinking with brain but heart
> living with heart but brain
> 

-- 
Eduardo