On 10/24/2014 10:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 08:47:47AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/24/2014 03:31 AM, Shanzhi Yu wrote:
libvirtd will report below error if does not make sure driver not be NULL
in virRegisterNetworkDriver
$ libvirtd
2014-10-24 09:24:36.443+0000: 28876: info : libvirt version: 1.2.10
2014-10-24 09:24:36.443+0000: 28876: error : virRegisterNetworkDriver:549 :
driver in virRegisterNetworkDriver must not be NULL
2014-10-24 09:24:36.443+0000: 28876: error : virDriverLoadModule:99 : Failed
module registration vboxNetworkRegister
Signed-off-by: Shanzhi Yu <s...@redhat.com>
---
src/vbox/vbox_driver.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/vbox/vbox_driver.c b/src/vbox/vbox_driver.c
index 743a488..ff69069 100644
--- a/src/vbox/vbox_driver.c
+++ b/src/vbox/vbox_driver.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ int vboxNetworkRegister(void)
if (VBoxCGlueInit(&uVersion) == 0)
networkDriver = vboxGetNetworkDriver(uVersion);
- if (virRegisterNetworkDriver(networkDriver) < 0)
+ if ((networkDriver != NULL) && (virRegisterNetworkDriver(networkDriver) <
0))
Over-parenthesized. Sufficient to write:
if (networkDriver && virRegisterNetworkDriver(networkDriver) < 0)
ACK to this.
Or did you botch the logic, and really mean:
if (!networkDriver || virRegisterNetworkDriver(networkDriver) < 0)
Furthermore, Dan's recent patch series will probably overhaul all of
this anyways, so it may be easier to just wait for his patches to land.
Thanks for your review. I mean the && not ||.
No, the logic in the patch is correct. We don't want an error if the
networkDriver is NULL. We just want to continue running without
any error in that case.
We should push this now because we'll want to cherry pick it to stable
branches.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Regards
shyu
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
