Re: [PATCH 2/6] storage: Split utility functions from storage_backend.(ch)

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

 



On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:56:52 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/18/2017 06:36 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > The file became a garbage dump for all kinds of utility functions over
> > time. Move them to a separate file so that the files can become a clean
> > interface for the storage backends.
> > ---
> >  po/POTFILES.in                         |    1 +
> >  src/Makefile.am                        |    3 +-
> >  src/storage/storage_backend.c          | 2950 +-------------------------------
> >  src/storage/storage_backend.h          |  124 --
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_disk.c     |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_fs.c       |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_gluster.c  |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_iscsi.c    |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_logical.c  |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_mpath.c    |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c      |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_scsi.c     |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_sheepdog.c |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_backend_zfs.c      |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_driver.c           |    1 +
> >  src/storage/storage_util.c             | 2915 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  src/storage/storage_util.h             |  148 ++
> >  tests/storagevolxml2argvtest.c         |    2 +-
> >  18 files changed, 3112 insertions(+), 3042 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 src/storage/storage_util.c
> >  create mode 100644 src/storage/storage_util.h
> > 
> 
> This fails to apply even for a 3.0 branch (not withstanding of course
> the two patches I pushed this morning that were ACK'd but held for 3.0.0
> to be released).

I think it conflicts with:

commit d04bb05fb7e9bf057b88032ffcd6709d1b70daef
Author: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Dec 6 06:17:20 2016 -0500

    storage: Fix virStorageBackendUpdateVolTargetInfo type check


> 
> Conceptually though this would seem to be OK - maybe you could just
> provide a/your remote branch (wasn't sure which of the
> git://pipo.sk/pipo/libvirt.git/ ones it would be and I didn't want to
> search)...

I did not upload it yet to the branch, I did expect conflicts, but not
that quick :)

Let me fix it and I'll upload it in a while.

Peter

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital 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]
  Powered by Linux