[...]
>> cleanup:
>> - if (rv != 0 && fd)
>> - VIR_FORCE_CLOSE(*fd);
>> + if (rv < 0) {
>> + int saved_errno = errno;
>> + virErrorPtr origerr;
>> +
>> + virErrorPreserveLast(&origerr);
>> + if (fd)
>> + VIR_FORCE_CLOSE(*fd);
>> +
>> + if (client && program &&
>> + flags & VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_ACQUIRE_ROLLBACK &&
>> + !(flags & VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_ACQUIRE_REGISTER_ONLY)) {
>
> Not sure any of the above 3 mean anything since lastGood is only set > 0
> in one place so I would think the subsequent loop is good alone. I
> haven't looked ahead though ;-)
>
>> + for (i = lastGood; i >= 0; i--) {
BTW: It just dawned on me while looking at patch 16 - this loop goes
backwards and the ReleaseImpl call was *incrementing* counter. I wonder
if that's what Bjoern ran into during testing. Even more reason to not
pass &counter!
John
>> + virLockManagerLockDaemonResourcePtr res =
>> &priv->resources[i];
>> +
>> + if (virLockManagerLockDaemonReleaseImpl(client, program,
>> + &counter, res) < 0)
>> + VIR_WARN("Unable to release resource lockspace=%s
>> name=%s",
>> + res->lockspace, res->name);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + virErrorRestore(&origerr);
>> + errno = saved_errno;
>> + }
--
libvir-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
