On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 08:49:33 +0200 Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:36:58 +0200 >Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >diff --git a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >index c21d11d..8d804a1 100644 >> >--- a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >+++ b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ virCPUDefFormatBufFull(virBufferPtr buf, >> > if (virCPUDefFormatBuf(&childrenBuf, def, updateCPU) < 0) >> > goto cleanup; >> > >> >- if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0) >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0) >> > goto cleanup; > >> Changing function names should be separate patch. Why is this >> changed anyway? > >I renamed virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat() to virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML() >to make it consistent with already existing function names like > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML() > Then put it in a separate patch.Sure. Do you advise me to put this patch in same or in a separated set?
Whatever suits you, I usually put clean-ups in the series as first patches so that it is cleanly prepared for the actual changes. But it's only a matter of not doing multiple things in one patch in case someone would be targetting one change in the future (finding a regression, back-porting it, reverting it). It also reads a bit more nicely.
- Wim.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
