On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:52:18PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:31:33PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > +TraceEvent *trace_event_iter_next(TraceEventIter *iter)
> > +{
> > + TraceEvent *ev;
> > +
> > + if (iter->event >= TRACE_EVENT_COUNT) {
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ev = &(trace_events[iter->event]);
> > +
> > + do {
> > + iter->event++;
> > + } while (iter->event < TRACE_EVENT_COUNT &&
> > + iter->pattern &&
> > + !pattern_glob(iter->pattern,
> > +
> > trace_event_get_name(&(trace_events[iter->event]))));
> > +
> > + return ev;
> > +}
>
> Shouldn't ev be updated inside the while loop? Otherwise the iterator
> always returns &trace_events[0] the first time it's called.
Sigh, yes, well spotted.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
