On 11/28/11 20:39, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Benjamin<mlspira...@gmail.com> wrote:
+ fd = qemu_socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
+ if (fd< 0) {
+ perror("socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM)");
+ return -1;
+ }
+ val = 1;
+ ret = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR,
+ (const char *)&val, sizeof(val));
+ if (ret< 0) {
+ perror("setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR)");
Please avoid leaking the file descriptor on error:
closesocket(fd);
Since existing code also does this it may be more appropriate to send
a follow-up patch that cleans up all of net/socket.c.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Stefan
I can do that. However is it really a leak considering the fact that
the program will call exit just after?
If it's a matter of consistency and coding style I would understand
though.
One more thing, git-format-patch added a "From" field to the header and
caused this glitch in the mail. I thought git-send-mail or the mail
server would handle it well but apparently not:
From 2f5b85fcadcfee3b75a6a21dc86d10b945c99f0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Benjamin MARSILI <marsi...@epitech.eu>
git-am didn't complain with the patch that I sent but it may break after
gmail relayed it
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg03152.html).
The second from header is interpreted as text... Should I remove the
first "From" field before sending the patch?
Sorry for the noise on the ML and thanks to all those who helped me get
involved.
Benjamin
