On 05/10/2011 07:07 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 02:07 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> All callers were expecting argv logging, so the split is unneeded.
>
> Not quite true - virCommandRunAsync already does an independent
> VIR_DEBUG of argv/envp prior to calling virExecWithHook, so we are
> actually doing double-duty at the moment. But that can be a later cleanup.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/util/util.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
>> 1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/util/util.c b/src/util/util.c
>> index 1d0c2cc..f860392 100644
>> --- a/src/util/util.c
>
>> + if ((argv_str = virArgvToString(argv)) == NULL) {
>> + virReportOOMError();
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (envp) {
>> + if ((envp_str = virArgvToString(envp)) == NULL) {
>> + VIR_FREE(argv_str);
>> + virReportOOMError();
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + VIR_DEBUG("%s %s", envp_str, argv_str);
>> + VIR_FREE(envp_str);
>> + } else {
>> + VIR_DEBUG0(argv_str);
>> + }
>> + VIR_FREE(argv_str);
>
> Pre-existing, but failure to log the argv/envp string shouldn't
> necessarily abort the attempt to run the command; see how command.c
> falls back to the simpler argv[0] when argv_str couldn't be computed.
>
> However, with regards to pure refactorization and code motion, I don't
> see any regressions, so:
>
> ACK with one nit:
>
>>
>> - if ((execret = __virExec(argv, NULL, NULL,
>> + if ((execret = virExecWithHook(argv, NULL, NULL,
>> &childpid, -1, &outfd, &errfd,
>> VIR_EXEC_NONE, hook, data, NULL)) < 0) {
>
> Reindent these lines to match the new column of ( in the change line above.
>
Made this change, and pushed along with patch 1, 5, and 6.
Thanks,
Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list