On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:25:19PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:18:06AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 01/30/2012 04:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:28:15PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> > >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> Add a new function to allow changing of capacity of storage volumes.
> > >> Plan out several flags, even if not all of them will be implemented
> > >> up front.
> > >>
> >
> > >> +typedef enum {
> > >> + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE = 1 << 0, /* force allocation of new size */
> > >> + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_DELTA = 1 << 1, /* size is relative to current */
> > >> + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK = 1 << 2, /* allow decrease in capacity */
> > >> +} virStorageVolResizeFlags;
> > >> +
> > >> +int virStorageVolResize (virStorageVolPtr vol,
> > >> + long long capacity,
> > >> + unsigned int flags);
> > >
> > >
> > > Why has this changed from 'unsigned long long' to just 'long long'.
> >
> > Because of VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_DELTA and
> > VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK. That is,
> >
> > virStorageVolResize(vol, -10 * 1024 * 1024, DELTA|SHRINK)
> >
> > is a valid call to shave off 10 MiB of data.
>
> Isn't that rather redundant. Either you need a negative size, or you
> need a SHRINK flag. If you have a shrink flag, then we don't need a
> signed int.
In fact since our existing virDomainBlockResize API is already
using unsigned long long, I'd say we should do shrinkage solely
based off the SHRINK flag, and *not* require a negative size
as well
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list