On mer, 2013-09-18 at 20:42 +1200, Matthew Daley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Dario Faggioli
>
> > Also, if something like that would be necessary, why doing it only for
> > tinfo and not for ninfo as well? I'm not that into coverity, but I don't
> > think I see why it treats the two of them differently... :-O
> 
> Not sure. Probably because if ninfo == NULL, we return directly out of
> the function instead of goto-ing the cleanup.
> 
Right, which, now that I've seen it, calls for a patch making it go
through cleanup too! :-P

Anyway, for libxl_cputopology_list_free() (and also for
libxl_numainfo_list_free() if I really decide to patch it to make it
more "libxl style"), especially considering that something similar to
this happens in other places (as we're seeing in 13/28), is there
anything we can do for preventing this to come up again in future scans?

Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)