On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:39:06PM +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/2016 5:00 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
> > > > > The default is not OFF, though, it's ABSENT :)
> > > > > In fact, as far as I can tell, OFF isn't ever used explicitly
> > > > > either for assignment or comparison. And false is plain wrong
> > > > > from a datatype point of view.
> > > > How about we change all three occurrences as boris list above
> > > > into VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT.
> > > Sure, that's exactly what I suggested :)
> > IMHO, we should just do what Michael suggested right at the start of this
> > thread and use {0}, instead of manually initializing each field to
> > 0, or a constant hiding the 0.
>
> That maybe change back again in the future, if this struct add a new member
> or current member need to be not zero-initialized.
Lets do what makes sense now, not in some hypothetical future that may
never happen.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list