On 01/31/13 17:09, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 31 January 2013 16:05, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 01/31/13 16:52, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> This looks like the wrong fix to this problem -- if the user passed >>> us a specific name to search for and we found it and it was full, then >>> we definitely want to stop here. >> >> You only skip the children, but not the siblings. When you return NULL >> here, the sibling loop one stack frame higher up continues anyway. > > Then that's a bug in the caller
The caller is the same function; it's recursive. > -- it should actually stop on > error, not plough ahead. [that is, we need to distinguish > "not found" from "found and it won't work" from "found".] Agreed. Is uniqueness of bus names enforced somewhere? Thanks! Laszlo
