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.