search for: guestfs_int_inotify_event_list

...x inotify implementation relies on it... > > diff --git a/daemon/inotify.c b/daemon/inotify.c > index 36e5ede..b847b7d 100644 > --- a/daemon/inotify.c > +++ b/daemon/inotify.c > @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ do_inotify_files (void) > unsigned int i; > FILE *fp = NULL; > guestfs_int_inotify_event_list *events; > - char buf[PATH_MAX]; > + char *buf = NULL; Make it CLEANUP_FREE, so you don't need to manually free it later (and gets freed in every exit point of the function). -- Pino Toscano

...event; - int n, r; + int r; + size_t n; r = read (inotify_fd, inotify_buf + inotify_posn, sizeof (inotify_buf) - inotify_posn); @@ -274,7 +275,7 @@ do_inotify_files (void) { char **ret = NULL; int size = 0, alloc = 0; - int i; + unsigned int i; FILE *fp; guestfs_int_inotify_event_list *events; char buf[PATH_MAX]; -- 1.6.4.174.gc193a

...-- daemon/inotify.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/daemon/inotify.c b/daemon/inotify.c index 36e5ede..b847b7d 100644 --- a/daemon/inotify.c +++ b/daemon/inotify.c @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ do_inotify_files (void) unsigned int i; FILE *fp = NULL; guestfs_int_inotify_event_list *events; - char buf[PATH_MAX]; + char *buf = NULL; char tempfile[] = "/tmp/inotifyXXXXXX"; int fd; char cmd[64]; @@ -361,6 +361,12 @@ do_inotify_files (void) return NULL; } + buf = malloc(PATH_MAX); + if (buf == NULL) { + reply_with_perror ("malloc"); +...

From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones at redhat.com> Callers are supposed to use the availability API to check for functions that may not be available in particular builds of libguestfs. If they don't do this, currently they tend to get obscure error messages, eg: libguestfs: error: zerofree: /dev/vda1: zerofree: No such file or directory This commit changes the error

I ran the Coverity static analyzer[1] on libguestfs, and fixed many errors as a result. Coverity found some errors in gnulib, but it doesn't seem to be worth following those up since the version of gnulib we are using is so old. There are a couple more errors (possibly 1 false-positive) which I'm going to send in a separate email. BTW all the errors found by Coverity were in the daemon

...b/daemon/inotify.c index 562365b..277c94c 100644 --- a/daemon/inotify.c +++ b/daemon/inotify.c @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ do_inotify_read (void) char ** do_inotify_files (void) { - DECLARE_STRINGSBUF (ret); + CLEANUP_FREE_STRINGSBUF DECLARE_STRINGSBUF (ret); unsigned int i; FILE *fp = NULL; guestfs_int_inotify_event_list *events; @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ do_inotify_files (void) goto error; unlink (tempfile); - return ret.argv; + return take_stringsbuf (&ret); error: if (fp != NULL) diff --git a/daemon/ldm.c b/daemon/ldm.c index 71cdf46..0636082 100644 --- a/daemon/ldm.c +++ b/daemon/ldm.c @@ -50,7...

If add_string_nodup fails free the passed string instead of leaking it, as that string would have been owned by the stringbuf. Adapt few places to this behaviour. --- daemon/btrfs.c | 4 +--- daemon/devsparts.c | 8 ++++---- daemon/guestfsd.c | 1 + 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c index 9b52aa8..d70565a 100644 ---

These two patches are probably not completely independent, but separating them is a lot of work. With *both* patches applied, all the tests and extra-tests pass. That's no guarantee however that there isn't a mistake, so I don't think this patch is a candidate for the 1.16 branch, until it's had a lot more testing in development. Rich.

Hi Rich, This series includes patches to make `make syntax-check` pass. Some of the fix require change to maint.mk, but the file is not in git repo. Is it intended? Thanks! Hu Tao (13): syntax-check: dirty hack to pass bindtextdomain check syntax-check: fix error_message_period check syntax-check: fix makefile_at_at_check syntax-check: fix prohibit_assert_without_use check