From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JLNQH-0007ww-CK for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:49:05 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JLNQE-0007s1-Fb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:49:02 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JLNQC-0007nU-DQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:49:01 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JLNQC-0007nJ-A6 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:49:00 -0500 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85] helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JLNQC-0007n5-2H for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:49:00 -0500 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D2D3EB26 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:55:43 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:48:57 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20080201224550.GA11984@thorin> <200802021338.28362.okuji@enbug.org> <20080202170549.GB25374@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20080202170549.GB25374@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802021948.57501.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: [PATCH] read command X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:49:02 -0000 On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:05, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 01:38:28PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > Does it make sense to move any of these two to kernel? Or to > > > normal.mod ? Or maybe just to un-static-ize them and leave them here? > > > > What would be other use cases? > > No idea. I suggest we just leave grub_getline here and if later we find > it's needed we can move it to normal or kernel. OK. > Ok, here's a new patch, with grub_getline returning NULL and the caller > handling "out of mem" error. > > Also fixed a memleak. You don't have to set grub_errno explicitly, because grub_realloc should do it. And, you didn't check the return value from grub_malloc. Okuji