Alan Jenkins wrote: > nak. The intention would have been to catch an "out of memory error" > when allocating devpaths. It should make sense if you replace "index" > with "devpaths" on that line instead, done New patch attached.
>From 52311df17535588c767e64be55116c8f5f14c473 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Mierswa <impulze@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:59:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Don't compare a non-existing function with NULL Obviously someone forgot something here or didn't use -ansi. Either way, index is nowhere declared so I assume the current behaviour is to check against the index() function coming from somewhere in the POSIX headers. The comparison doesn't make sense then. Signed-off-by: Daniel Mierswa <impulze@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- libudev/libudev-queue-private.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/libudev/libudev-queue-private.c b/libudev/libudev-queue-private.c index 0427b65..4dea4ad 100644 --- a/libudev/libudev-queue-private.c +++ b/libudev/libudev-queue-private.c @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static struct queue_devpaths *build_index(struct udev_queue_export *udev_queue_e return NULL; } devpaths = calloc(1, sizeof(struct queue_devpaths) + (range + 1) * sizeof(long)); - if (index == NULL) + if (devpaths == NULL) return NULL; devpaths->devpaths_size = range + 1; -- 1.6.4
