search for: new_callbacks

...return 0; + + nbd_internal_set_error_context ("nbd_add_free_callback"); + pthread_mutex_lock (&h->lock); + + /* Extend the list of callbacks in the handle. */ + if (h->nr_free_callbacks >= h->alloc_free_callbacks) { + size_t new_alloc; + struct free_callback *new_callbacks; + + if (h->alloc_free_callbacks == 0) + new_alloc = 8; + else + new_alloc = 2 * h->alloc_free_callbacks; + + new_callbacks = realloc (h->free_callbacks, + sizeof (struct free_callback) * new_alloc); + if (new_callbacks == NULL) { + se...

...l_set_error_context ("nbd_add_free_callback"); > + pthread_mutex_lock (&h->lock); > + > + /* Extend the list of callbacks in the handle. */ > + if (h->nr_free_callbacks >= h->alloc_free_callbacks) { > + size_t new_alloc; > + struct free_callback *new_callbacks; > + > + if (h->alloc_free_callbacks == 0) > + new_alloc = 8; > + else > + new_alloc = 2 * h->alloc_free_callbacks; > + > + new_callbacks = realloc (h->free_callbacks, > + sizeof (struct free_callback) * new_alloc); Sh...

...<cb (ptr)> is called when libnbd > > As written, your patch uses C<cb (ptr, user_data)>, so either this text > is wrong, or you really don't need user_data. Yes it should be cb (ptr, user_data). I'll tighten it up because there are now two user_datas. > > + new_callbacks = realloc (h->free_callbacks, > > + sizeof (struct free_callback) * new_alloc); > > Should we start relying on reallocarray() to guarantee no multiplication > overflow? (Not yet in POSIX, but it has been proposed: > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.p...

As proposed here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-August/msg00130.html I didn't actually read Eric's replies to that yet because I've been concentrating on writing these patches all day. Anyway here they are and I'll look at what Eric said about the proposal next. Rich.

...hree-tuple in C: main callback, free callback, and user data - is sufficient to give language bindings the flexibility they need to pack up a C struct containing everything needing cleanup at the end of the lifetime, whether or not there is also a language callback in play) > >>> + new_callbacks = realloc (h->free_callbacks, >>> + sizeof (struct free_callback) * new_alloc); >> >> Should we start relying on reallocarray() to guarantee no multiplication >> overflow? (Not yet in POSIX, but it has been proposed: >> http://austingr...