On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:04:46AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > >> > Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > src/admin/libvirt-admin.c | 3 +-- > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> s/on/in/ $SUBJECT? > >> > >> This might be the case for other patches as well. > > > >Noted. > > > >> > >> One note, I would say it's ok to squash some of the patches from this > >> series together, for example all the g_autofree patches per file for > >> example. > > > >I really thought about that. However, it may be misleading as I'm not > >touching all the possible conversions to use g_autofree in the other > >functions. > > Well this case is also misleading, since you aren't touching all the > possible g_autofree conversions in this functions If you're talking specifically about this patch, sock_path is returned. Meaning that we cannot free it when its out of the scope. If you caught some other case, please let me know because as I most likely missed it. Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
