"Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> +/* Like virFileReadLimFP, but use a file descriptor rather than a FILE*. */
>> +int __virFileReadLimFD(int fd_arg, int maxlen, char **buf)
>> +{
>> +int fd = dup (fd_arg);
>> +if (0 <= fd) {
>
> Can we stick to 'fd >= 0' or 'fd < 0' o
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:18:08PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> "Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +
> > +
> > +while (got < (sizeof(help)-1)) {
> > +i
"Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> "Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This final patch switches over all places which do fork()/exec() to use the
>> > new enhanced virExec() code. A fair amount of code
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This final patch switches over all places which do fork()/exec() to use the
> > new enhanced virExec() code. A fair amount of code is deleted, but that's
> > not the whole story - the
"Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This final patch switches over all places which do fork()/exec() to use the
> new enhanced virExec() code. A fair amount of code is deleted, but that's
> not the whole story - the new impl is more robust that most of the existing
> code we're deleti
This final patch switches over all places which do fork()/exec() to use the
new enhanced virExec() code. A fair amount of code is deleted, but that's
not the whole story - the new impl is more robust that most of the existing
code we're deleting here.
bridge.c | 51 +++-
pr
