KR> Yes, since modify args. This is the new arg element that will
KR> eventually be returned.
Er, the rest of the function only seems to call CMAddArg(*args, ...),
which doesn't necessitate a double pointer. Unless I missed something
like:
*args = CMNewArgs(...);
then I think you're fine.
KR> However, based on the suggestion above, I think things can be
KR> reworked so that we won't need the double-pointer.
Even better :)
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms(a)us.ibm.com