[libvirt] [PATCH 02/16] util: Combine __virExec and virExecWithHook

[Cole Robinson]

On 05/10/2011 07:07 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 02:07 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> All callers were expecting argv logging, so the split is unneeded.
> 
> Not quite true - virCommandRunAsync already does an independent
> VIR_DEBUG of argv/envp prior to calling virExecWithHook, so we are
> actually doing double-duty at the moment.  But that can be a later cleanup.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  src/util/util.c |   86 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
>>  1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/util/util.c b/src/util/util.c
>> index 1d0c2cc..f860392 100644
>> --- a/src/util/util.c
> 
>> +    if ((argv_str = virArgvToString(argv)) == NULL) {
>> +        virReportOOMError();
>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    if (envp) {
>> +        if ((envp_str = virArgvToString(envp)) == NULL) {
>> +            VIR_FREE(argv_str);
>> +            virReportOOMError();
>> +            return -1;
>> +        }
>> +        VIR_DEBUG("%s %s", envp_str, argv_str);
>> +        VIR_FREE(envp_str);
>> +    } else {
>> +        VIR_DEBUG0(argv_str);
>> +    }
>> +    VIR_FREE(argv_str);
> 
> Pre-existing, but failure to log the argv/envp string shouldn't
> necessarily abort the attempt to run the command; see how command.c
> falls back to the simpler argv[0] when argv_str couldn't be computed.
> 
> However, with regards to pure refactorization and code motion, I don't
> see any regressions, so:
> 
> ACK with one nit:
> 
>>  
>> -    if ((execret = __virExec(argv, NULL, NULL,
>> +    if ((execret = virExecWithHook(argv, NULL, NULL,
>>                               &childpid, -1, &outfd, &errfd,
>>                               VIR_EXEC_NONE, hook, data, NULL)) < 0) {
> 
> Reindent these lines to match the new column of ( in the change line above.
> 

Made this change, and pushed along with patch 1, 5, and 6.

Thanks,
Cole