"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > No, they are all correct AFAIK. The *existing* code was buggy using > the wrong macros in many places. ... > You need to compare with the function context shown in the patch, rather > than assume the original code was correct :-) Yeah, "assuming" can cause trouble ;-) It would help others down the road if there were a note in the ChangeLog that this change set also fixes several bugs. Some might even prefer to put the minimal bug-fix-only change into its own change set. From an N-year maintenance perspective, that's preferable: less risk of it interfering with other changes. Otherwise, the fixes are buried under all the similar-looking-but-syntax-only changes. If you don't mind splitting this patch, I'll be happy to supply the equivalent pair of replacement change sets. -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list