block: Assert that drv->bdrv_child_perm is set in bdrv_child_perm()

There is no need to check for this because all block drivers that have
children implement bdrv_child_perm and all callers already ensure that
bs->drv is set.

Furthermore, if this check would fail then the callers would end up
with uninitialized values for nperm and nshared.

This patch replaces the check with an assertion.

Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Message-id: 20190404112953.4058-1-berto@igalia.com
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Alberto Garcia 2019-04-04 14:29:53 +03:00 committed by Max Reitz
parent 21205c7c3b
commit 0b3ca76e52

View File

@ -1743,11 +1743,10 @@ static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs,
uint64_t parent_perm, uint64_t parent_shared,
uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
{
if (bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm) {
bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue,
parent_perm, parent_shared,
nperm, nshared);
}
assert(bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm);
bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue,
parent_perm, parent_shared,
nperm, nshared);
/* TODO Take force_share from reopen_queue */
if (child_bs && child_bs->force_share) {
*nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;