Thomas Huth writes:
> On 15/03/2021 07.43, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
>> If it's unrelated, then maybe better do it in a separate patch.
>> I thought so but I didn't know whether it was a so-small change
>> that it didn't require its own patch or not. I will amend that.
>> Since this is onl
On 15/03/2021 07.43, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
If it's unrelated, then maybe better do it in a separate patch.
I thought so but I didn't know whether it was a so-small change
that it didn't require its own patch or not. I will amend that.
Since this is only a very small allocation, I thin
>
> If it's unrelated, then maybe better do it in a separate patch.
>
I thought so but I didn't know whether it was a so-small change
that it didn't require its own patch or not. I will amend that.
Since this is only a very small allocation, I think it would be better to
> use g_malloc() here and
On 14/03/2021 04.23, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
Replaced a malloc() call and its respective free() call with
GLib's g_try_malloc() and g_free().
Also, did slight styling changes that were producing
style errors when using the checkpatch.pl script against
the file.
If it's unrelated, then maybe bet
Replaced a malloc() call and its respective free() call with
GLib's g_try_malloc() and g_free().
Also, did slight styling changes that were producing
style errors when using the checkpatch.pl script against
the file.
Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Mandour
---
util/compatfd.c | 10 +-
1 file cha
