From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f7zSz-0005ck-VJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:26:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f7zSx-0001UB-90 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:26:25 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:56280 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f7zSx-0001TZ-4S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:26:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108B881A88A7 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:26:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <20180413161842.5117-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20180413161842.5117-5-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:26:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180413161842.5117-5-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau"'s message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:18:42 +0200") Message-ID: <87k1t7sgka.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 4/4] qobject: modify qobject_ref() to assert on NULL and return obj List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: > Following a discussion on the mailing list: If a reader of this commit message could profit from reading the discussion, refer to it by URL and/or Message-Id. If not, don't mention it. > while it may be convenient > to accept NULL value in qobject_unref() (for similar reasons as free() > accepts NULL), it is a probably a bad idea to accept NULL argument in > qobject_ref(). Yes? What's the patch doing about it? Peeking ahead: it outlaws it. So say that. > Furthermore, Commit message smell: two things in one patch. Worth separating them? > it is convenient and more clear to call qobject_ref() at > the time when the reference is associated with a variable, or > argument. For this reason, make qobject_ref() return the same pointer > as given. Not 100% clear whether the patch merely makes the "convenient and more clear" way possible, or reality. Peeking ahead: it's the latter. So say that. How did you find the places to change? Do you think you got them all? > Signed-off-by: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau