On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:23:29PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-10-18 14:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:15:47PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >> On 2011-10-17 15:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >>>> diff --git a/hw/msi.c b/hw/msi.c
> > >>>> index 3c7ebc3..9055155 100644
> > >>>> --- a/hw/msi.c
> > >>>> +++ b/hw/msi.c
> > >>>> @@ -40,6 +40,14 @@
> > >>>> /* Flag for interrupt controller to declare MSI/MSI-X support */
> > >>>> bool msi_supported;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +static void msi_unsupported(MSIMessage *msg)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + /* If we get here, the board failed to register a delivery
> > >>>> handler. */
> > >>>> + abort();
> > >>>> +}
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +void (*msi_deliver)(MSIMessage *msg) = msi_unsupported;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>
> > >>> How about we set this to NULL, and check it instead of the bool
> > >>> flag?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yeah. I will introduce
> > >>
> > >> bool msi_supported(void)
> > >> {
> > >> return msi_deliver != msi_unsupported;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> OK?
> > >>
> > >> Jan
> > >>
> > >
> > > Looks a bit weird ...
> > > NULL is a pretty standard value for an invalid pointer, isn't it?
> >
> > Save us the runtime check and is equally expressive and readable IMHO.
> >
> > Jan
>
> Do we need to check?
> NULL dereference leads to a crash just as surely...
>
Not universally (not on AIX for instance (read)).
--
mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
