On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:49:54 +0200
Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de> wrote:
> Am 03.09.2012 18:34, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:57:36 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Il 01/09/2012 09:30, Stefan Weil ha scritto:
> >>> Report from smatch:
> >>>
> >>> qapi-visit.c:1640 visit_type_BlockdevAction(8) error:
> >>> we previously assumed 'obj' could be null (see line 1639)
> >>> qapi-visit.c:2432 visit_type_NetClientOptions(8) error:
> >>> we previously assumed 'obj' could be null (see line 2431)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
> >>> ---
> >>> scripts/qapi-visit.py | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/scripts/qapi-visit.py b/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> index 2afc5c0..1a669f3 100644
> >>> --- a/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> +++ b/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ void visit_type_%(name)s(Visitor *m, %(name)s ** obj,
> >>> const char *name, Error **
> >>> if (!error_is_set(errp)) {
> >>> visit_start_struct(m, (void **)obj, "%(name)s", name,
> >>> sizeof(%(name)s), &err);
> >>> if (!err) {
> >>> - if (!obj || *obj) {
> >>> + if (obj && *obj) {
> >>> visit_type_%(name)sKind(m, &(*obj)->kind, "type", &err);
> >>> if (!err) {
> >>> switch ((*obj)->kind) {
> >>>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> >
> > Is this for 1.2?
> >
> > Although the fix is pretty obvious, it doesn't seem possible to trigger the
> > segfault today and I believe we're only accepting true bug fixes at this
> > point
> > (ie. two days from the release).
>
> As long as nobody has a scenario which triggers the bug,
> there is no need to apply that patch before 1.2 is released.
>
> That's why I did not add "for 1.2" to the subject line.
Applied to qmp-next, thanks.
