On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks I never answered this one.
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:30PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> >> +const gchar *gvir_config_domain_hostdev_pci_get_rom_file(GVirConfigDomainHostdevPci *hostdev)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return gvir_config_object_get_attribute(GVIR_CONFIG_OBJECT(hostdev), "rom", "file");
>> >
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +gboolean gvir_config_domain_hostdev_pci_get_rom_bar(GVirConfigDomainHostdevPci *hostdev)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return gvir_config_object_get_attribute_boolean(GVIR_CONFIG_OBJECT(hostdev),
>> >> + "rom", "bar", FALSE);
>> >
>> > I'd prefer to handle on/off parsing here rather than moving it to
>> > get_attribute_boolean().
>>
>> Why? Quick look through libvirt XML docs, shows that on/off is used in
>> other places too.
>
> libvirt treats "on"/"off" and "yes"/"no" as different types,
> virTristateSwitch and virTristateBool.
Giving them different names don't really make them different. on/off
and yes/no, both have two states and are essentially booleans.
> This patch would treat the 2 as "boolean", and only in the parsing case
> as it obviously cannot guess what is the right behaviour when converting
> to string.
> So I'd rather we don't start to treat both as booleans.
So you're suggesting that I inline the implementation and not make this generic?
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list