On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 01:32:34PM +0000, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote: > On Aug 30, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:38:06PM -0400, Kyle Mestery wrote: [...] > > Still there is something which looks wrong, if we don't have a profileID > > why do we end up with "" instead of NULL ? I'm seeing various tests for > > profileID[0] over conf/*.c and util/*.c , and that sounds wrong to me. > > if there is no data, store NULL ! Then test for profileID instead of > > profileID[0]. Then there is no risk of a crash because abscence of data > > led to NULL instead of an empty string, the code is more resilient ! > > > > I expect a followup patch cleaning this up, but after 0.10.1 ... > > thanks ! > > > Thanks Daniel, I'll work on the followup patch today. No hurry, because I just rolled 0.10.1 out so that won't make it (and it's not urgent). Giving 0.10.1 a try would be nice too, thanks ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list