[libvirt PATCH] Fix allocation of virDomainFSDef

Ján Tomko posted 1 patch 3 years, 10 months ago
Test syntax-check failed
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://github.com/patchew-project/libvirt tags/patchew/98906af921c2ec516ce84eddcde4a9f69a22629e.1592482374.git.jtomko@redhat.com
src/openvz/openvz_conf.c | 2 +-
src/vbox/vbox_common.c   | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
[libvirt PATCH] Fix allocation of virDomainFSDef
Posted by Ján Tomko 3 years, 10 months ago
Some less commonly used drivers were omitted when we switched
the allocator from a plain VIR_ALLOC to virDomainFSDefNew.

Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
Fixes: da665fbd4858890fbb3bbf5da2a7b6ca37bb3220

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846450
---
 src/openvz/openvz_conf.c | 2 +-
 src/vbox/vbox_common.c   | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/openvz/openvz_conf.c b/src/openvz/openvz_conf.c
index 190c57b622..db3df5ed5a 100644
--- a/src/openvz/openvz_conf.c
+++ b/src/openvz/openvz_conf.c
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ openvzReadFSConf(virDomainDefPtr def,
             goto error;
         }
 
-        if (VIR_ALLOC(fs) < 0)
+        if (!(fs = virDomainFSDefNew(NULL)))
             goto error;
 
         veid_str = g_strdup_printf("%d", veid);
diff --git a/src/vbox/vbox_common.c b/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
index 85935ba731..15f8eb074a 100644
--- a/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
+++ b/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
@@ -3626,7 +3626,7 @@ vboxDumpSharedFolders(virDomainDefPtr def, vboxDriverPtr data, IMachine *machine
         char *hostPath = NULL;
         PRBool writable = PR_FALSE;
 
-        if (VIR_ALLOC(def->fss[i]) < 0)
+        if (!(def->fss[i] = virDomainFSDefNew(data->xmlopt)))
             goto cleanup;
 
         def->fss[i]->type = VIR_DOMAIN_FS_TYPE_MOUNT;
-- 
2.25.4

Re: [libvirt PATCH] Fix allocation of virDomainFSDef
Posted by Andrea Bolognani 3 years, 10 months ago
On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 14:13 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> Some less commonly used drivers were omitted when we switched
> the allocator from a plain VIR_ALLOC to virDomainFSDefNew.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
> Fixes: da665fbd4858890fbb3bbf5da2a7b6ca37bb3220
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846450

The S-o-b tag is traditionally the last one to appear in the commit
message. Do you have a reason for having it up there? If not, please
move it to the bottom of the commit message and add my

  Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>

too while you're at it :)

-- 
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization

Re: [libvirt PATCH] Fix allocation of virDomainFSDef
Posted by Ján Tomko 3 years, 10 months ago
On a Thursday in 2020, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 14:13 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> Some less commonly used drivers were omitted when we switched
>> the allocator from a plain VIR_ALLOC to virDomainFSDefNew.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
>> Fixes: da665fbd4858890fbb3bbf5da2a7b6ca37bb3220
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846450
>
>The S-o-b tag is traditionally the last one to appear in the commit
>message. Do you have a reason for having it up there?

Of course!

Jano


See https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-June/msg00710.html
for my reasoning.

>If not, please
>move it to the bottom of the commit message and add my
>
>  Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
>
>too while you're at it :)
>
>-- 
>Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
>
Re: [libvirt PATCH] Fix allocation of virDomainFSDef
Posted by Andrea Bolognani 3 years, 10 months ago
On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 15:55 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On a Thursday in 2020, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 14:13 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> > > Some less commonly used drivers were omitted when we switched
> > > the allocator from a plain VIR_ALLOC to virDomainFSDefNew.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
> > > Fixes: da665fbd4858890fbb3bbf5da2a7b6ca37bb3220
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846450
> > 
> > The S-o-b tag is traditionally the last one to appear in the commit
> > message. Do you have a reason for having it up there?
> 
> Of course!
> 
> Jano
> 
> 
> See https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-June/msg00710.html
> for my reasoning.

Makes sense! Thanks for providing your rationale.

-- 
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization