On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:30:02AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 20.11.2012 19:51, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > The latter one has been already checked as can be seen in context of the > last chunk. The first one should not fail since it is us who inserted > the value into volume->priv->vol;
Imo it's good to check that things are consistant with whatever assumptions have to be true, if the hash gets corrupted somehow, we'll at least get a warning that things are not in order. Most arguments to public/semi-public APIs are sanity-checked this way. > But assuming this function > may be used somewhere else in the future these checks are actually > correct - maybe my assumptions won't last then. Moreover, it doesn't > hurt to check when playing around, right? Well, it hurts in the sense that it has a runtime cost, which can be non-negligible when these checks are run in a tight loop, but I don't think these specific functions will be called that often. Christophe
pgpZ6t6i1axui.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
