On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:11:23PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > +static gboolean
> > +gvir_designer_domain_has_spice_channel(GVirDesignerDomain *design)
> > +{
> > + GList *devices;
> > + GList *it;
> > + gboolean has_spice = FALSE;
> > +
> > + devices = gvir_designer_domain_get_device_by_type(design,
> > +
> > GVIR_CONFIG_TYPE_DOMAIN_CHANNEL);
> > + for (it = devices; it != NULL; it = it->next) {
> > + GVirConfigDomainChannel *channel;
> > + const char *target_name;
> > + channel = GVIR_CONFIG_DOMAIN_CHANNEL(it->data);
> > + target_name = gvir_config_domain_channel_get_target_name(channel);
> > + if (g_strcmp0(target_name, GVIR_DESIGNER_SPICE_CHANNEL_NAME) == 0)
> > {
> > + /* FIXME could do more sanity checks (check if the channel
> > + * source has the 'spicevmc' type)
> > + */
> > + GVirConfigDomainChannelTargetType target_type;
> > + target_type =
> > gvir_config_domain_channel_get_target_type(channel);
> > + if (target_type == GVIR_CONFIG_DOMAIN_CHANNEL_TARGET_VIRTIO) {
> > + has_spice = TRUE;
> > + } else {
> > + g_critical("Inconsistent SPICE channel, target type is
> > wrong (%d)",
> > + target_type);
>
> Is this really a critical issue? What about g_warning instead?This means the domain XML has a very unexpected content, so I'd tend to tag that as g_critical (which is not much different from g_warning anyway). I don't mind changing it to g_warning. Christophe
pgpHvOOI3P2jP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
