On 3/25/19 10:47 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> There are no harm but just looks weird to return bool in
> pointer-returning function. Introduced in 69240fe62d1 with the whole
> failure-checking "if" chunk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> qapi/qmp-dispatch.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Trivial enough to include in 4.0 if there are other qapi patches needed;
but no semantic change so also harmless if it slips to 4.1.
>
> diff --git a/qapi/qmp-dispatch.c b/qapi/qmp-dispatch.c
> index 5f812bb9f2..e2c366e09e 100644
> --- a/qapi/qmp-dispatch.c
> +++ b/qapi/qmp-dispatch.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static QObject *do_qmp_dispatch(QmpCommandList *cmds, QObject *request,
> if (oob && !(cmd->options & QCO_ALLOW_OOB)) {
> error_setg(errp, "The command %s does not support OOB",
> command);
> - return false;
> + return NULL;
> }
>
> if (runstate_check(RUN_STATE_PRECONFIG) &&
>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org