On 02.01.2017 12:04, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: >> On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 12:35 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: >>> > No rush, I see Michal has yet another proposal for this that we >>> haven't >>> > considered and even though there are somedrawbacks to that as well, it >>> > looks nicer than this. >>> > >>> > After all the ideas I'm starting to like the "gross" one the best. Oh >>> > my =) >>> >>> My vote still goes to this solution, because having a placeholder seems >>> more explicit and easier to follow than doing s/lo/lo0/ directly. >> >> I vote for Michal's approach as it doesn't require us to >> disable VIR_TEST_REGENERATE_OUTPUT. >> > > Well, it does. Kinda. You *must not* regenerate output on FreeBSD with > his patch, so it should be explicitly disabled.
Really? I think it works well even if you do regenerate output there. I mean, my patch fixes the output of the actual configuration, so that it will always contain 'lo' instead of 'lo0'. And test output regeneration is done after that. With 'lo'. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
