On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 17:02 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > Would removing the values altogether cause any trouble with > > the following values, that would have to remain defined > > explicitly? > > > > QEMU_CAPS_NET_NAME = QEMU_CAPS_0_10 > > QEMU_CAPS_HOST_NET_ADD = QEMU_CAPS_0_10 > > Oh, that's a real mess. Normally, if some caps are implied by another > one, we handle that in the corresponding probing function. But in > this > case these are not separate capabilities, we still have just one > capability, but there are three symbolic names leading to it. I think > the simplest solution of this mess is just > > #define QEMU_CAPS_NET_NAME QEMU_CAPS_0_10 > #define QEMU_CAPS_HOST_NET_ADD QEMU_CAPS_0_10 > > and only keep QEMU_CAPS_0_10 in the enum. I did just that and sent a v2 to the list. Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list