Please see the attached patches. I tried to split the patches logically
into manageable sets.
Unfortunately I made a minor mistake and I am afraid I will do something
wrong to fix it.
I merged two wrong patches. Fortunately it was three liner with 1 liner
so it is not a big of the deal but I am really scared that I will do
something wrong and loose the work I have done.
So I hope it is Ok to send it as is.
0001--INI-Making-Coverity-happy.patch <- this is the patch I submitted
earlier that I merged by mistake. I was supposed to merge it with patch
25 but picked the wrong one instead.
Patch 25 addresses the real issue found by Coverity as mentioned in
Stephen's review mail but it did not apply cleanly since it relies on
some code from the patches in the middle.
0002--INI-Adding-missing-function-declararion.patch <- this is the
patch that was rejected from the second set sent earlier. Fixed
according to review comment.
0003--BUILD-Allow-trace-per-component.patch <- This patch allows tracing
The following set of patches introduces the merging of sections during
the reading of the file:
Patches related porting of the meta data from old way of doing things to
the new way of doing things:
0021--INI-Avoid-double-free.patch <- patch related to 17 (missed check)
0024--INI-Rename-error-print-function.patch <- rename error printing
function for consistency with new interface
0025--INI-Initialize-variables-in-loops.patch <- Coverity issue
addressed. Related to patch 0001.
0026--INI-Exposing-functions.patch <- Make some internal functions reusable
There is also patch 27. It is a piece of new functionality. It is a
preview. Please see the comment before reviewing it.
Do I need to split it into multiple patches or it is Ok as is? It is
pretty big but all changes are in one file and logically related.
The UNIT test is missing so I am not claiming it actually works as
Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.
Looking to carve out IT costs?