On 31 January 2013 16:05, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/31/13 16:52, Peter Maydell wrote: >> This looks like the wrong fix to this problem -- if the user passed >> us a specific name to search for and we found it and it was full, then >> we definitely want to stop here. > > You only skip the children, but not the siblings. When you return NULL > here, the sibling loop one stack frame higher up continues anyway.
Then that's a bug in the caller -- it should actually stop on error, not plough ahead. [that is, we need to distinguish "not found" from "found and it won't work" from "found".] > This function deserves more intrusive changes, but that's usually > invitation for more bikeshedding, hence I wanted to avoid it. (For > example, before commit 1395af6f there was no reason to set "match" to > zero in two independent "if"s, then check "match" in a third "if".) I > think that a rewrite from scratch would be justified (and frowned upon). I think refactorings that make the code make more sense are entirely reasonable. -- PMM
