On 04/04/14 14:54, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 03:31 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>
>>> struct _virStorageFileMetadata {
>>> - char *backingStore; /* Canonical name (absolute file, or protocol) */
>>> - char *backingStoreRaw; /* If file, original name, possibly relative */
>>> - char *directory; /* The directory containing basename of backingStoreRaw */
>>> - int backingStoreFormat; /* enum virStorageFileFormat */
>>> - bool backingStoreIsFile;
>>> + /* Name of this file as spelled by the user (top level) or
>>> + * metadata of the parent (if this is a backing store). */
>>> + char *path;
>>> + /* Canonical name of this file, used to detect loops in the
>>> + * backing store chain. */
>>> + char *canonName;
>>> + /* Directory to start from if backingStoreRaw is a relative file
>>> + * name */
>>> + char *relDir;
>>> + /* Name of the backing store recorded in metadata of the parent */
Maybe then change "parent" to "this image" to un-confuse me :)
>>> + char *backingStoreRaw;
>>
>> Hmm, this field seems pretty redundant to me, IIUC it's the same data as
>> in "path".
>
> No, it's not.
>
> Given the chain:
>
> base <- top
>
> my goal is to have:
>
> { .path = "top",
> .canonName = "/path/to/top",
> .relDir = ".",
> .backingStoreRaw = "base",
> .backingMeta = {
> .path = "base",
> .canonName = "/path/to/base",
> .relDir = ".",
> .backingStoreRaw = NULL,
> .backingMeta = NULL,
> }
> }
>
....
my mind was poisoned with the current way the code is filling the fields
and a little bit with the comment.
ACK the refactor makes sense. Maybe it's worth changing the wording a
bit though.
Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list