On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:01 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 05:23:24AM +0200, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
> > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *fuse_ll_alloc_req(struct
> fuse_session *se)
> > {
> > struct fuse_req *req;
> >
> > - req = (struct fuse_req *)calloc(1, sizeof(struct fuse_req));
> > + req = g_try_new(struct fuse_req, 1);
>
> g_try_new0() since the original call was calloc(3)?
>
> > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ static int lo_map_grow(struct lo_map *map, size_t
> new_nelems)
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > - new_elems = realloc(map->elems, sizeof(map->elems[0]) * new_nelems);
> > + new_elems = g_realloc_n(map->elems, new_nelems,
> sizeof(map->elems[0]));
>
> g_try_realloc_n() since failure is handled below?
>
> Stefan
>
Hello Mr. Stefan,
You're correct. I'm really sorry for such small and strangely obvious
errors.
If the patch is going to be ACKed, will you edit those problems or shall I
fix them and
resend the patch again alone?
