Searched refs:candidate (Results 1 – 25 of 26) sorted by relevance
12
92 V candidate = children.get(i); in removeChild() local93 if (toRemove.equals(candidate)) { in removeChild()
23 # should be a candidate for O_CLOEXEC.
714 const LinearExtent& candidate) const { in IsAnyRegionCovered()716 if (region.device_index == candidate.device_index() && in IsAnyRegionCovered()717 (candidate.OwnsSector(region.start) || candidate.OwnsSector(region.end))) { in IsAnyRegionCovered()724 bool MetadataBuilder::IsAnyRegionAllocated(const LinearExtent& candidate) const { in IsAnyRegionAllocated()728 if (!linear || linear->device_index() != candidate.device_index()) { in IsAnyRegionAllocated()731 if (linear->OwnsSector(candidate.physical_sector()) || in IsAnyRegionAllocated()732 linear->OwnsSector(candidate.end_sector() - 1)) { in IsAnyRegionAllocated()
38 allow update_engine proc:file r_file_perms; # delete candidate
84 # TODO: why is this so broad? Tightening candidate? It needs at list:
19 # XXX dontaudit candidate but requires further study.
1188 candidate = ""1206 candidate = candidate21222 candidate = candidate31228 return whole_match.replace(candidate,filter_function(node))
330 const LinearExtent& candidate) const;331 bool IsAnyRegionAllocated(const LinearExtent& candidate) const;
44 allow update_engine proc:file r_file_perms; # delete candidate
85 # TODO: why is this so broad? Tightening candidate? It needs at list:
247 auto candidate = fs_mgr_get_overlayfs_candidate(mount_point); in fs_mgr_get_overlayfs_options() local248 if (candidate.empty()) return ""; in fs_mgr_get_overlayfs_options()249 auto ret = kLowerdirOption + mount_point + "," + kUpperdirOption + candidate + kUpperName + in fs_mgr_get_overlayfs_options()250 ",workdir=" + candidate + kWorkName; in fs_mgr_get_overlayfs_options()
156 auto const candidate = StringPrintf("%s/cx%010u", directory_path.c_str(), i); in get_ce_key_new_path() local157 if (paths[0] < candidate) { in get_ce_key_new_path()158 *ce_key_path = candidate; in get_ce_key_new_path()
1572 auto candidate = android::fs_mgr::GetPartitionName(partition); in should_flash_in_userspace() local1577 if (candidate + "_a" == partition_name || candidate + "_b" == partition_name) { in should_flash_in_userspace()1580 } else if (candidate == partition_name) { in should_flash_in_userspace()
41 with individual types is a candidate for removal. The rule with
101 # TODO: why is this so broad? Tightening candidate? It needs at list:
110 # TODO: why is this so broad? Tightening candidate? It needs at list:
571 # only one candidate or it is obvious which candidate to choose by doing a
596 # only one candidate or it is obvious which candidate to choose by doing a