On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:20:09 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > On 04/29/2016 11:34 AM, John Ferlan wrote: > > As it turns out, trusting that <allocation> being 0 means it wasn't > > provided isn't such a good idea. > > > > If someone provided a <capacity> of 10 and <allocation> of 0, then > > we need to honor it. > > > > So this patch which I'll merge into the previous patch will track > > when the XML is read if the allocation was provided or not. That > > way we can determine in this code that if allocation = 0, then > > "overwrite" with the capacity value if it wasn't provided. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > src/conf/storage_conf.c | 1 + > > src/storage/storage_driver.c | 11 ++++++----- > > src/util/virstoragefile.c | 1 + > > src/util/virstoragefile.h | 2 ++ > > 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > ping - any thoughts regarding squashing this in as well? I think it will be better if you repost the patch in the form you are going to push it. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list