Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix bridge creation/deletion on 2.6.x kernels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:22:10PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 26.08.2015 17:53, Laine Stump wrote:
<snip/>

How about this: give virNetlinkDelLink() a new argument
"fallbackDeleteFunc" which would either be NULL, or a pointer to
virNetDevBridgeDeleteWithIoctl() (in this case)? That avoids needing to
split virNetlinkDelLink into multiple parts as well as the duplication
of code, and I think it's much less obtuse than the boolean thing of V1.

D'oh! I mean, if someone calls virNetlink*() he can assume that the
function will talk to kernel via netlink. This would break the
assumption. But I because I am unable to come up with a better idea, I
think it's our best option.


As hacky as the previous one, but at least clean and understandable,
in my opinion.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]