On 05/23/2017 04:26 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote: > John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> [2017-05-19, 09:08AM -0400]: >> All part of the effort I have to have a common object model. This series >> is node device test, driver, and virnodedevobj related. >> >> There's also a couple of bug fixes at the beginning of the series from >> things I have found during this effort. >> >> There's still a few more patches in local branches to make the >> virNodeDeviceObjListPtr private as well, but those have some merge >> needs with other patches currently on list elsewhere, so I'll hold >> onto them for now. >> > > Am I missing something or where does the privatization actually happen? Yeah about 5 or so more patches - bad subject for the cover letter then. The "issue" is that the "next" patch in the series deals with virNodeDeviceObjList and that required a test_driver change. Because the patches in my local branch build upon others and changes in other patches have conflicts with a test_driver.c change to _testDriver... > > In general, a lot of the cleanups you are performing are beneficial for > the readability. My biggest concern is that this will generate a lot of > work when backporting patches. Think I already addressed this in patch 4 response. John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
