On 2/7/26 16:16, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026, Sergei Heifetz wrote:
On 2/4/26 17:53, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 à 08:57, Sergei Heifetz a écrit :
Reorder the code so the assertion of block occurs before it is
used in the subsequent lines.
Signed-off-by: Sergei Heifetz <[email protected]>
---
system/physmem.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
index b0311f4531..4308e02940 100644
--- a/system/physmem.c
+++ b/system/physmem.c
@@ -2054,11 +2054,11 @@ static int memory_try_enable_merging(void
*addr, size_t len)
*/
int qemu_ram_resize(RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t newsize, Error
**errp)
{
+ assert(block);
+
const ram_addr_t oldsize = block->used_length;
const ram_addr_t unaligned_size = newsize;
- assert(block);
-
According to coding style (docs/devel/style.rst):
Mixed declarations (interleaving statements and declarations within
blocks) are generally not allowed.
newsize = TARGET_PAGE_ALIGN(newsize);
newsize = REAL_HOST_PAGE_ALIGN(newsize);
Thanks,
Laurent
Should I remove the assertion altogether, then? I think the const
qualifier on oldsize is more useful than the assertion.
What does the const qualifier have to do with dereferencing block when
it's NULL? You'd just need to split the line as:
int qemu_ram_resize(RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t newsize, Error **errp)
{
const ram_addr_t oldsize;
const ram_addr_t unaligned_size = newsize;
assert(block);
oldsize = block->used_length;
This code won't compile because you are trying to assign a new value to
a const variable. That's precisely why you would need to remove the
const qualifier from oldsize in order to keep the assert.
How is that not obvious? The commit message also does not say why do
you want to change this. How did you come up with this patch, what
issue does it fix when block is NULL here?
The original code contains a useless assert that comes after
dereferencing block. The patch fixes that.
