From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tabled] server/server.c don't deref NULL on failed malloc
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:41:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4C9BAD54.30303@garzik.org>
References: <87zkv8wwlo.fsf@meyering.net> <20100923080710.22d3f6e4@lembas.zaitcev.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <hail-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from
         :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ZTVwkkjXRqVDNMhjQndZy0zfO+CnIQ7s04D4rfGPmJw=;
        b=B8HffycxtfrytBdaLpm8uKYNPM5D8fuk+cx4bEpRJiH/VLjcW7qS7JAydlIT0xKQSY
         8sVsJ92eONoQJsQQfo4wpALodFbBX9fI0x1ZH/QRQVIM/fVnmo583+R5aFyZU/E1FG8k
         Y1FbWsQ8DNJMNElCRPRx1oSlyu9ZmDYMKwhjs=
In-Reply-To: <20100923080710.22d3f6e4@lembas.zaitcev.lan>
Sender: hail-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <hail-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>
Cc: Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>, Project Hail <hail-devel@vger.kernel.org>

On 09/23/2010 10:07 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:03:15 +0200
> Jim Meyering<jim@meyering.net>  wrote:
>
>> Just noticed that sometimes tabled uses this idiom:
>>    if (!(key = malloc(klen + 1)))
>> and sometimes this:
>>    if ((key = malloc(klen + 1)) == NULL)
>> This time I used "... == NULL".
>
> Er... The bang is Jeff's, which I try to follow always, but perhaps
> one or two slipped due to opposing habit. IIRC pathtokey() was mine.
> In fact tabled does not use assignments in conditions, dunno why
> but it's a tradition.

I always considered assignments in conditionals as fragile and 
error-prone, and try to avoid them.  However, I occasionally break my 
own rule, such as with fgets(3) or getopt(3) loops.

And, getting back on topic, I do prefer implicit rather than explicit 
testing for zero and non-zero...  but that too is a "weak preference" 
where I won't complain much if somebody else does it.

Typically the general rule for any codebase is "try to look like the 
rest of the codebase."

	Jeff