On 01/29/2018 09:47 AM, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 01/25/2018 10:23 AM, Erik Skultety wrote: >>> We currently have 2 methods that do the capability matching. This should >>> be condensed to a single function and all the derivates should just call >>> into that using a proper type conversion. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 8 +++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >>> index a4d38b3a1..ccad59a4b 100644 >>> --- a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >>> +++ b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >>> @@ -55,6 +55,8 @@ static void virNodeDeviceObjDispose(void *opaque); >>> static void virNodeDeviceObjListDispose(void *opaque); >>> static bool virNodeDeviceObjHasCapStr(const virNodeDeviceObj *obj, >>> const char *cap); >>> +static bool virNodeDeviceObjHasCap(const virNodeDeviceObj *obj, >>> + int type); >>> >> >> Again, I'm failing to see why the forward declaration is needed. ACk to >> the rest. > > I can drop the one from patch 1 that one is really not needed, but dropping this > one would cause the compilation to fail on patch 3. Now, sure I could very > easily solve this by moving the function up, but I originally decided to go this > way rather than creating 2 large hunks just because of the function move. Let > me know whether you'd prefer to see the function to be moved or you're fine > with the forward decl. in this case. Ah, okay keep them in then. I just failed to see this reasoning. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
