On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:45:01PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:22:29PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 06:32:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > From: Miloslav Trmač
> > >
> > > The libvirt_util.la library was mistakenly linked i
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:22:29PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 06:32:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > From: Miloslav Trmač
> >
> > The libvirt_util.la library was mistakenly linked into libvirtd
> > directly. Since libvirt_util.la is already linked to libvirt.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 06:32:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> From: Miloslav Trmač
>
> The libvirt_util.la library was mistakenly linked into libvirtd
> directly. Since libvirt_util.la is already linked to libvirt.so,
> this resulted in libvirtd getting two copies of the code and
> more c
On 10/12/2010 11:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
@@ -708,6 +735,18 @@ virFileFindMountPoint;
virFileWaitForDevices;
virFileMatchesNameSuffix;
virArgvToString;
+virStrcpy;
+virStrncpy;
+virBuildPathInternal;
+virFileStripSuffix;
+virFileOperation;
+virFork;
+virRandom;
+virRandomInitialize;
From: Miloslav Trmač
The libvirt_util.la library was mistakenly linked into libvirtd
directly. Since libvirt_util.la is already linked to libvirt.so,
this resulted in libvirtd getting two copies of the code and
more critically 2 copies of static global variables.
Testing in turn exposed a issue
