On 03/01/2012 01:48 PM, Laine Stump wrote: > With an additional new bool added to determine whether or not to > discourage the use of the supplied MAC address by the bridge itself, > virNetDevTapCreateInBridgePort had three booleans (well, 2 bools and > an int used as a bool) in the arg list, which made it increasingly > difficult to follow what was going on. This patch combines those three > into a single flags arg, which not only shortens the arg list, but > makes it more self-documenting. > --- > > Does this make more sense as a PATCH 2/1 to be associated with the > first patch in this thread: > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-February/msg00760.html > > or should I squash them both together? (I'm leaning towards two > separate patches, but could be convinced either way) I'm fine with two patches. I haven't reviewed the earlier post, but for this commit, you have my: ACK. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list