[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM
From: |
Bean |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:22:56 +0800 |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Robert Millan<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:09PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> - buf2 = grub_zalloc (size);
>> + buf2 = grub_malloc (size);
>> if (!buf2)
>> return grub_errno;
>>
>> + grub_memset (buf, 0, size);
>
> We just received 'buf' as parameter. Why do we have to zero it here?
Hi,
Because we are in a recovery function, the original content may not be
correct, we need to clear it out before continue.
>
>> +static int
>> +probe_raid_level (grub_disk_t disk)
>> +{
>> + if (disk->dev->id != GRUB_DISK_DEVICE_RAID_ID)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return ((struct grub_raid_array *) disk->data)->level;
>> +}
>
> Since this an ad-hoc function, could you put it in the same block that
> needs it? If 'static' qualifier is present, it won't result in nested
> function AFAICT.
It's used by the next function probe, so unless we use nested
function, it can't be placed closer.
--
Bean
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Patrik Horník, 2009/07/19
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/19
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Felix Zielcke, 2009/07/25
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Patrik Horník, 2009/07/27
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/27
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Robert Millan, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Felix Zielcke, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM,
Bean <=
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Robert Millan, 2009/07/31
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Patrik Horník, 2009/07/30
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Pavel Roskin, 2009/07/31
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/31
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Felix Zielcke, 2009/07/31