Re: [PATCH 2/2] seccomp: avoid shadowing of 'action' variable

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> This is confusing as one 'action' variable is used for storing
> a SCMP_ enum value, while the other 'action' variable is used
> for storing a SECCOMP_ enum value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> ---
>  softmmu/qemu-seccomp.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/softmmu/qemu-seccomp.c b/softmmu/qemu-seccomp.c
> index d66a2a1226..4d7439e7f7 100644
> --- a/softmmu/qemu-seccomp.c
> +++ b/softmmu/qemu-seccomp.c
> @@ -283,9 +283,9 @@ static uint32_t qemu_seccomp_update_action(uint32_t action)
>      if (action == SCMP_ACT_TRAP) {
>          static int kill_process = -1;
>          if (kill_process == -1) {
> -            uint32_t action = SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
> +            uint32_t testaction = SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
>  
> -            if (qemu_seccomp(SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL, 0, &action) == 0) {
> +            if (qemu_seccomp(SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL, 0, &testaction) == 0) {
>                  kill_process = 1;
>              } else {
>                  kill_process = 0;

I'd prefer @test_action.  Regardless:
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>