qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-ga: Remove unreachable code


From: Stefan Weil
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-ga: Remove unreachable code after g_error
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:02:20 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0

Am 03.09.2012 18:49, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Sat,  1 Sep 2012 09:34:15 +0200
Stefan Weil <address@hidden> wrote:

Report from smatch:
qemu-ga.c:117 register_signal_handlers(11) info: ignoring unreachable code.
qemu-ga.c:122 register_signal_handlers(16) info: ignoring unreachable code.

g_error calls abort which terminates the program.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <address@hidden>
---
  qemu-ga.c |    2 --
  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/qemu-ga.c b/qemu-ga.c
index 7623079..b747470 100644
--- a/qemu-ga.c
+++ b/qemu-ga.c
@@ -114,12 +114,10 @@ static gboolean register_signal_handlers(void)
      ret = sigaction(SIGINT, &sigact, NULL);
      if (ret == -1) {
          g_error("error configuring signal handler: %s", strerror(errno));
-        return false;
Good catch, but we should really drop g_error() usage as qemu-ga will not
fail gracefully otherwise (will leak the pidfile, for example). We either
just drop g_error() or replace it by fprintf().

Isn't that a classical case of an error which should never occur,
something which could also be handled by an assert statement?

I don't expect a graceful exit after such errors. If they occur,
that's something which must be fixed in the code.

When I read the documentation of sigaction, I don't see how
it could fail with the given function arguments.

Therefore I'd apply the patch as it is.

Regards,

- sw




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]