On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:18:04PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
>Use the helper designed to find the subelement. A slight semantic
>difference after this patch is that the first <zpci> element will be
>considered instead of the last, but only one is expected in a valid XML.
>
>Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>
>---
> src/conf/device_conf.c | 16 ++++------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/src/conf/device_conf.c b/src/conf/device_conf.c
>index 762efe5f0b..a116e39c75 100644
>--- a/src/conf/device_conf.c
>+++ b/src/conf/device_conf.c
>@@ -199,8 +199,7 @@ int
> virPCIDeviceAddressParseXML(xmlNodePtr node,
> virPCIDeviceAddress *addr)
> {
>- xmlNodePtr cur;
>- xmlNodePtr zpci = NULL;
>+ xmlNodePtr zpci;
You can initialise the variable right away here instead of ...
>
> memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr));
>
>@@ -227,18 +226,11 @@ virPCIDeviceAddressParseXML(xmlNodePtr node,
> if (!virPCIDeviceAddressIsEmpty(addr) && !virPCIDeviceAddressIsValid(addr, true))
> return -1;
>
>- cur = node->children;
>- while (cur) {
>- if (cur->type == XML_ELEMENT_NODE &&
>- virXMLNodeNameEqual(cur, "zpci")) {
>- zpci = cur;
>- }
>- cur = cur->next;
>+ if ((zpci = virXMLNodeGetSubelement(node, "zpci"))) {
... making this look like lisp ;)
in first 4 patches. But I get it's a subjective preference.
>+ if (virZPCIDeviceAddressParseXML(zpci, addr) < 0)
>+ return -1;
> }
>
>- if (zpci && virZPCIDeviceAddressParseXML(zpci, addr) < 0)
>- return -1;
>-
> return 0;
> }
>
>--
>2.39.1
>