Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 4/9] iptables.c: Use virStrerror, not strerror.
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:07:49PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
...
> Here's an incremental diff that also includes additional
changes, e.g.,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - enable the syntax-check for strerror
> - change more "out of error" reports to use virReportOOMError
> - use QEMUD_ERROR consistently
...
> diff --git a/Makefile.nonreentrant b/Makefile.nonreentrant
> index 13fa59d..b567f31 100644
> --- a/Makefile.nonreentrant
> +++ b/Makefile.nonreentrant
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ NON_REENTRANT += setstate
> NON_REENTRANT += sgetspent
> NON_REENTRANT += srand48
> NON_REENTRANT += srandom
> -# NON_REENTRANT += strerror
> +NON_REENTRANT += strerror
> NON_REENTRANT += strtok
> NON_REENTRANT += tmpnam
> NON_REENTRANT += ttyname
> diff --git a/qemud/Makefile.am b/qemud/Makefile.am
> index 372b931..a0c161a 100644
> --- a/qemud/Makefile.am
> +++ b/qemud/Makefile.am
> @@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ libvirtd_LDADD = \
> if ! WITH_DRIVER_MODULES
> if WITH_QEMU
> libvirtd_LDADD += ../src/libvirt_driver_qemu.la
> -libvirtd_LDADD += ../src/libvirt_util.la
> endif
>
> if WITH_LXC
Someting seems not right here - we shouldn't need this change,
since this shouldn't be added in the first place.
That's the *incremental* change, against what you reviewed the
first time.
> diff --git a/src/network_driver.c b/src/network_driver.c
> index 8d7340e..4138939 100644
> --- a/src/network_driver.c
> +++ b/src/network_driver.c
> @@ -904,16 +904,17 @@ static int networkStartNetworkDaemon(virConnectPtr conn,
> err_delbr2:
> networkRemoveIptablesRules(driver, network);
>
> - err_delbr1:;
> - char ebuf[1024];
> + err_delbr1:
> if (network->def->ipAddress &&
> (err = brSetInterfaceUp(driver->brctl, network->def->bridge, 0)))
{
> + char ebuf[1024];
> networkLog(NETWORK_WARN, _("Failed to bring down bridge '%s' :
%s\n"),
> network->def->bridge, virStrerror(err, ebuf, sizeof ebuf));
> }
This also appears to be changing code which doesn't exist.
Same as above.
[snip more of the same]
Have you got the actual patch against current CVS, since this doesn't
appear to be it ?
Yep. It was attached at the end, after this:
> Here's the 10-change-set sequence: