[PATCH] - Fix Unchecked memory usage.

[Edward O'Callaghan]

Thanks Jeremy, your quite right.

I normally just set pointers as NULL without thinking too much about
it, figured its a good habit to have. :)

Although it does not matter here, but you can remove the line if you
really want.

Have a good afternoon,
Cheers,
Edward.

2009/7/8 Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org>:
> Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>> Imagine what happens if everyone sent links. A patch is forgotten or
>> maybe it's part a larger discussion. Suddenly the link dies, and part
>> of the history is gone. It's really annoying to check mailinglist
>> archives only to find dead links.
>>
>> Maarten.
>>
>
> And it makes quoting in a reply easier...
>
> You don't need to initialize bufmgr_gem to NULL here since the first
> thing you do is call calloc() for it... of course any decent optimized
> compiler will simply ignore that '= NULL', but I figured I'd point it out.
>
> @@ -1389,13 +1395,16 @@ drm_intel_gem_bo_disable_reuse(drm_intel_bo *bo)
>  drm_intel_bufmgr *
>  drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_init(int fd, int batch_size)
>  {
> -    drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem;
> +    drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem = NULL;
>     struct drm_i915_gem_get_aperture aperture;
>     drm_i915_getparam_t gp;
>     int ret, i;
>     unsigned long size;
>
>     bufmgr_gem = calloc(1, sizeof(*bufmgr_gem));
> +    if (bufmgr_gem == NULL) {
> +        return NULL;
> +    }
>     bufmgr_gem->fd = fd;
>
>     if (pthread_mutex_init(&bufmgr_gem->lock, NULL) != 0) {
>
>
>



-- 
-- 
Edward O'Callaghan
http://www.auroraux.org/
eocallaghan at auroraux dot org