On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adding output to 'virsh --version=long' makes it easier to
> tell if a distro built with particular libraries (it doesn't
> tell you what a remote libvirtd is built with, but is still
> better than nothing).
>
> * tools/virsh.c (vshShowVersion): Add gluster witness.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/virsh.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virsh.c b/tools/virsh.c
> index 5559d71..9d07d3e 100644
> --- a/tools/virsh.c
> +++ b/tools/virsh.c
> @@ -3069,6 +3069,9 @@ vshShowVersion(vshControl *ctl ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> #ifdef WITH_STORAGE_SHEEPDOG
> vshPrint(ctl, " Sheepdog");
> #endif
> +#ifdef WITH_STORAGE_GLUSTER
> + vshPrint(ctl, " Gluster");
> +#endif
> vshPrint(ctl, "\n");
>
> vshPrint(ctl, "%s", _(" Miscellaneous:"));
> --
> 1.8.4.2
>
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
>From a code stand point this is fine. But the commit subject and
message are ambiguous and don't really explain what you're doing. It
seems like you're adding all storage compile options into the output
when really they were there already and just Gluster was missing.
Wouldn't be better to say "storage: show gluster option in virsh
--version=long"?
I realize I'm nitpicking the commit message/subject, the code is fine
so ACK from that stand point.
--
Doug Goldstein
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list