On 7/29/21 1:51 PM, wang.yi59@zte.com.cn wrote:
Hi Michal,
Thanks for your reply.
On 7/29/21 4:16 AM, Yi Wang wrote:
From: Jia Zhou <zhou.jia2@zte.com.cn>
When loop in function virNVMeDeviceListCreateReAttachList() there may be reused index @i, this patch fix this by using a new @j.
Signed-off-by: Jia Zhou <zhou.jia2@zte.com.cn> Signed-off-by: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn> --- src/util/virnvme.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/util/virnvme.c b/src/util/virnvme.c index 49102e3..b54a195 100644 --- a/src/util/virnvme.c +++ b/src/util/virnvme.c @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ virNVMeDeviceListCreateReAttachList(virNVMeDeviceListPtr activeList, virNVMeDeviceListPtr toReAttachList) { g_autoptr(virPCIDeviceList) pciDevices = NULL; - size_t i; + size_t i, j;
This new variable can be declared inside the loop since it's needed only there.
if (!(pciDevices = virPCIDeviceListNew())) return NULL; @@ -412,8 +412,8 @@ virNVMeDeviceListCreateReAttachList(virNVMeDeviceListPtr activeList, /* Check if there is any other NVMe device with the same PCI address as * @d. To simplify this, let's just count how many NVMe devices with * the same PCI address there are on the @activeList. */ - for (i = 0; i < activeList->count; i++) { - virNVMeDevicePtr other = activeList->devs[i]; + for (j = 0; j < activeList->count; j++) { + virNVMeDevicePtr other = activeList->devs[j];
This doesn't look rebased on the top of anything recent. In commit v7.3.0-rc1~229 I've dropped internal virXXXPtr and replaced them with virXXX *.
if (!virPCIDeviceAddressEqual(&d->address, &other->address)) continue;
Ooops yes. This is a bug. However, I'd prefer that 'j' would be defined inside the loop.
Also, I'm having difficulties applying this patch. Partly because it's multipart e-mail and even if I extract text/plain part then git am is still unhappy. Can you please use git send-email?
Actually I used git send-email to send this patch, and I have forwarded this to our IT department, but unfortunately that may take a long long time :(
Yeah, it would be great if this could get resolved.
Would you please apply this patch manually first? Many thanks.
I've done that. Fortunately, the change was simple enough and it fixes a bug in the code I've written. Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> Michal