On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM Pavel Hrdina <phrdina(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:04:46AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > src/admin/libvirt-admin.c | 3 +--
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> s/on/in/ $SUBJECT?
>>
>> This might be the case for other patches as well.
>
>Noted.
>
>>
>> One note, I would say it's ok to squash some of the patches from this
>> series together, for example all the g_autofree patches per file for
>> example.
>
>I really thought about that. However, it may be misleading as I'm not
>touching all the possible conversions to use g_autofree in the other
>functions.
Well this case is also misleading, since you aren't touching all the
possible g_autofree conversions in this functions
If you're talking specifically about this patch, sock_path is
returned. Meaning that we cannot free it when its out of the scope.
If you caught some other case, please let me know because as I most
likely missed it.
Best Regards,
--
Fabiano Fidêncio