On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> When virStorageBackendProbeTarget fails, it returns -1 or -2.
> The two uses below obviously intended to handle those cases
> differently, but due to a wrong comparison, they always treated a
> "real" (e.g., open) failure (-1) just like an ignorable "wrong file type"
> failure (-2).
>
> FYI, coverity reported that the "goto cleanup" statement was
> unreachable, which was true in each case, but hardly the real problem.
> @@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ virStorageBackendFileSystemRefresh(virConnectPtr conn,
> &backingStore,
> &vol->allocation,
> &vol->capacity,
> - &vol->target.encryption) < 0)) {
> + &vol->target.encryption) != 0)) {
> if (ret == -1)
> goto cleanup;
> else {
> @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ virStorageBackendFileSystemRefresh(virConnectPtr conn,
> if ((ret = virStorageBackendProbeTarget(conn,
> &vol->backingStore,
> NULL, NULL, NULL,
> - NULL)) < 0) {
> + NULL)) != 0) {
> if (ret == -1)
> goto cleanup;
> else {
I don't understand how this is making any difference. The method
virStorageBackendProbeTarget can return 0, -1 or -2, so
virStorageBackendProbeTarget < 0 catches the -1 and -2 cases
virStorageBackendProbeTarget != 0 catches the -1 and -2 cases
I only see this change making a difference if one of the error return values
is a positive integer greater than 0, but we don't have that here. What am
I missing ?
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list