Hi
----- Original Message -----
> On 07/19/2016 02:54 AM, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> >
> > srcfifo && dstfifo must still be freed in this case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > tests/test-io-channel-command.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/test-io-channel-command.c
> > b/tests/test-io-channel-command.c
> > index 1d1f461..95be370 100644
> > --- a/tests/test-io-channel-command.c
> > +++ b/tests/test-io-channel-command.c
> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static void test_io_channel_command_fifo(bool async)
> >
> > unlink(TEST_FIFO);
> > if (access("/bin/socat", X_OK) < 0) {
> > - return; /* Pretend success if socat is not present */
> > + goto end; /* Pretend success if socat is not present */
> > }
>
> If we fail here...
>
> > if (mkfifo(TEST_FIFO, 0600) < 0) {
>
> ...then we don't create a fifo here...
>
> > abort();
> > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static void test_io_channel_command_fifo(bool async)
> > object_unref(OBJECT(src));
> > object_unref(OBJECT(dst));
> >
> > +end:
> > g_free(srcfifo);
> > g_free(dstfifo);
> > unlink(TEST_FIFO);
>
> ...and unlink() will (hopefully) fail to unlink a missing file. But in
> the worst case, it unlinks someone else's file. Probably worth being a
> bit stricter about only undoing what you have already done.
But the test starts by unlinking unconditionally too, so not sure it's really
worth.
>
>
> --
> Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
> Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
>
>
