On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 07:11:00AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 06:59 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/09/2013 04:11 AM, Hu Tao wrote:
> >
> > <...snip...>
> >
> >>
> >> +static bool
> >> +virDomainPanicCheckABIStability(virDomainPanicDefPtr src,
> >> + virDomainPanicDefPtr dst)
> >> +{
> >> + return virDomainDeviceInfoCheckABIStability(&src->info, &dst->info);
>
> >
> > Unlike the virDomainRNGDefCheckABIStability() API, the new virDomainPanicCheckABIStability()
> > has no checks for !src && !dst
>
> Yay for automated regression testing catching something! And sorry that
> I missed this in my initial review. Yes, adding or removing the panic
> device is an ABI incompatibility.
Indeed. The ABI stability checks are something we really ought to
be able to have our unit tests do in fact. At the very least we
could feed in every single XML file we have in the test suite as
both the src & dst params, to serve as an "identity" test.
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