[libvirt] [PATCH]lxc: fix an improper comment in lxc_process

[Osier Yang]

On 14/10/13 15:49, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Osier Yang [mailto:jyang at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:34 PM
>> To: Chen Hanxiao
>> Cc: libvir-list at redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH]lxc: fix an improper comment in lxc_process
>>
>> On 14/10/13 14:22, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
>>> From: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao at cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>> Fix an improper comment when libvirt has released all resources
>>> for lxc.
>>> Then original comment says "stopped" rather than "released".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao at cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>>    src/lxc/lxc_process.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
>>> index d07ff13..7746c9b 100644
>>> --- a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
>>> +++ b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
>>> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void virLXCProcessCleanup(virLXCDriverPtr
>> driver,
>>>        virSystemdTerminateMachine(vm->def->name, "lxc", true);
>>>
>>>
>>> -    /* now that we know it's stopped call the hook if present */
>> I see no problem here, given that "it" means the vm process here. It
>> might be better to have a comma after "stopped" though, with explicitly
>> pointing out what "it" stands for. I.e.
>>
> In this function will handle two scenario:
> a) a LXC guest is stopped
> b) libvirt has released all resources
>
> But the comments are the SAME. That are not what intended.
> I think it's more clear if we could distinguish them.

Hm, I didn't notice it's the second "hook" call.   ACK and pushed.

Osier