Do we have a bug number for this patch? Please also add a ChangeLog
entry for it.
+ int num_hal_udis, i;
+
Should not num_hal_udis be initialized to 0 here? As you might not be
able to get a value for it in libhal_manager_find_device_string_match().
+ if (!raw_device)
+ continue;
+ libhal_free_string (udi);
Should not udi be freed anyway? If so, you'd better free all values of
cd_udis after your for loop instead of freeing it here.
And you'd better to enclose the "for" loop in a { } pair. Or it might
confuse user with the "if" sentence following it.
And should raw_device be freed at last or not?
Harry
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 14:44 +0800, Irene (Shi Ying) Huang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> if the second parameter of
> nautilus_burn_drive_monitor_get_drive_for_device in nautilus burn is not
> a raw device, then no NautilusBurnDrive will be returned. This is not
> correct. I created a patch for identifying whether the input device is a
> raw device or not, if not, the raw device path correspond to that device
> will be automatically retrieved, and the correct nautlusburndrive will
> be returned.
>
> The definition of the API is:
> NautilusBurnDrive *
> nautilus_burn_drive_monitor_get_drive_for_device
> (NautilusBurnDriveMonitor *monitor,
> const char
> *device)
>
> Please review.
>
> Thanks
>
> --Irene
>
