vsock: Use PathBuf for socket paths instead of Strings #819
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
stefano-garzarella
requested changes
Feb 20, 2025
Fields `uds_path` and `socket` now use PathBuf. This allows for better filesystem compatibility. Signed-off-by: Luigi Leonardi <[email protected]>
|
Thanks @stefano-garzarella for the review and all the suggestions! I think I have fixed everything. |
stsquad
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary of the PR
This PR changes socket paths type from String to PathBuf in vhost-user-vsock.
This work was started in #446 but never completed.
Requirements
Before submitting your PR, please make sure you addressed the following
requirements:
git commit -s), and the commit message has max 60 characters for thesummary and max 75 characters for each description line.
test.
Release" section of CHANGELOG.md (if no such section exists, please create one).
unsafecode is properly documented.