Sorry, I don't get it. In inspect.c line 67 you have this:
for (fs = fses; *fs; fs += 2) {
if (guestfs_int_check_for_filesystem_on (g, *fs)) {
guestfs_int_free_inspect_info (g);
return NULL;
}
}
I don't see the bug.
On 02/06/15 18:30, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 06:18:38PM +0300, Nikos Skalkotos wrote:
> On 02/06/15 17:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24:58PM +0300, Nikos Skalkotos wrote:
>>> + if (collect_coreos_inspection_info (g)) {
>>> + guestfs_int_free_inspect_info (g);
>>> + return NULL;
>>> + }
>> Although this is stylistic, I think it's easier to understand if
>> you change the if condition to:
>>
>> if (collect_coreos_inspection_info (g) == -1) {
>> ...
>>
> Since we 'll be using safe_realloc, I don't think there is a need for
> any of:
> * guestfs_int_merge_fs_inspections()
> * collect_coreos_inspection_info()
> to be returning a value at all. So, I'll remove the if check completely.
>
> Nikos
>
> P.S. You have a check like this one on
> guestfs_int_check_for_filesystem_on() a few lines above :-)
In extend_fses? That's a bug ..
Rich.