On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 04:57:17PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > > There's no requirement to plug devices in ascending slot order - we can > > > have gaps at will with any ordering. > > > > At this point, I'm starting to think that we can just drop this 2/2 > > patch and not worry about nextslot being stable across libvirtd restarts. > > Which means we don't even need most of 1/2 since the reason for changing the > hash payload to be a structure instead of a string was this second patch. > So what do you think, should I push it as is or make a smaller patch which > would just fix OOM checking when PCI addresses are converted to strings? Yep, lets do a simpler patch Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list