On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:35 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> @@ -5164,13 +5164,26 @@ testStorageVolDelete(virStorageVolPtr vol,
> static int
> testStorageVolumeTypeForPool(int pooltype)
> {
> - switch (pooltype) {
> - case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DIR:
> - case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_FS:
> - case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS:
> - return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_FILE;
> - default:
> - return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK;
> + switch ((virStoragePoolType) pooltype) {
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DIR:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_FS:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_VSTORAGE:
> + return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_FILE;
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_SHEEPDOG:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ISCSI_DIRECT:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_GLUSTER:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_RBD:
> + return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_NETWORK;
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_LOGICAL:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DISK:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_MPATH:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ISCSI:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_SCSI:
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ZFS:
Surely VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK should be returned here...
> + case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_LAST:
> + default:
> + return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK;
> }
... and these last two would result in virReportEnumRangeError()
being called?
I won't comment on the actual change since it's out of my area of
expertise, though it looks sane enough from where I'm standing.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
