[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:42:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
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?
> +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.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
- 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 <=
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Felix Zielcke, 2009/07/28
- Re: [PATCH] Bug fix for LVM, Bean, 2009/07/28
- 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