On 09/20/2018 03:30 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 09/12/2018 06:09 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>> Create a common pool refresh failure handling method as the
>> same code is repeated multiple times.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/storage/storage_driver.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_driver.c b/src/storage/storage_driver.c
>> index 5a8871bd07..8aa3191f7b 100644
>> --- a/src/storage/storage_driver.c
>> +++ b/src/storage/storage_driver.c
>> @@ -79,6 +79,18 @@ static void storageDriverUnlock(void)
>> }
>>
>>
>> +static void
>> +storagePoolRefreshFailCleanup(virStorageBackendPtr backend,
>> + virStoragePoolObjPtr obj,
>> + const char *stateFile)
>> +{
>> + if (stateFile)
>> + ignore_value(unlink(stateFile));
>
> I was about to ask this in 1/5. Is this ignore_value() needed? Quick
> `git grep' shows we are not consistent.
>
True, in both cases though it's a copy of existing code.
I'm assuming it's a Coverity thing though... As a test I just removed
all ignore_value from unlink and ran a Coverity build with no issues.
I'll generate and post a patch to remove them all shortly.
Tks for the review -
John
>> + if (backend->stopPool)
>> + backend->stopPool(obj);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Michal
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
