On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 09:28:01AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 08:16:21 +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > 86fbce56f27e removed the constant, but didn't actually adjust the only > > place where the constant was used. > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This patch fixes a build breakage. > > > > It's either this, or reverting 86fbce56f27e. > > I've reverted it now sice the premise that the constant was unused is > wrong. A separate patch can e.g. squash this change and the removal of > the constant with a better justification perhaps. Obviously that will > need to go through review again to consider the merit of the > justification. Yes, I screwed up. I removed use of this constant in my pending branch but forgot this. I notice the constant declaration was unused. It genuinely was unused when first introduced, but later it was made use of. Unfortunately when searching the history I jumped straight over the place which introduced its use, making it appear to me as if it was never used :-( Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
