On 2017-06-21 10:24, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:18:18PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 2017-06-19 17:00, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> It's confusing when two different variables have the same name in one
>>> function.
>>>
>>> Cc: Reda Sallahi <fullmanet@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  qemu-img.c | 9 +++------
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
>>> index 0ad698d..c285c2f 100644
>>> --- a/qemu-img.c
>>> +++ b/qemu-img.c
>>> @@ -4249,15 +4249,12 @@ static int img_dd(int argc, char **argv)
>>>          case 'U':
>>>              force_share = true;
>>>              break;
>>> -        case OPTION_OBJECT: {
>>> -            QemuOpts *opts;
>>> -            opts = qemu_opts_parse_noisily(&qemu_object_opts,
>>> -                                           optarg, true);
>>> -            if (!opts) {
>>> +        case OPTION_OBJECT:
>>> +            if (!qemu_opts_parse_noisily(&qemu_object_opts, optarg, true)) {
>>>                  ret = -1;
>>>                  goto out;
>>>              }
>>> -        }   break;
>>> +            break;
>>>          case OPTION_IMAGE_OPTS:
>>>              image_opts = true;
>>>              break;
>>
>> Hm, I basically reverted such a style in commit
>> 3258b91141090b05edcaab8f1d1dd355ca91b49a. I find it confusing to use the
>> same variable for two different things.
> 
> I don't follow how the commit you posted is related to this patch.  Did
> you read the patch too quickly and think it uses the outer opts
> variable?

Pleading guilty: Yes, I did. I just saw you dropped the inner variable
and thus thought you were using the outer ones to resolve shadowing.

> This patch doesn't use a variable at all - there is no need for one.

Good, then! :-)

Sorry, and thanks, applied to my block branch:

https://github.com/XanClic/qemu/commits/block

Max