Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, 04/24 09:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 08:27:02PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: >> > Move opaque to 2nd instead of the 2nd to last, so that compilers help >> > check with the convertion. >> >> Moving 'opaque' like this should not be done. >> >> If you want the compiler to check the fixes, it should be done in >> just two stages. First move errp & move opaque to start, compile >> it & verify. Then put opaque back to where it was, and compile >> again. The resulting commit thus only has the errp move, not the >> unrelated & uneccessary opaque move. > > The idea is to let everyone's compiler verifies this patch, and also to avoid > possible bugs introduced in backporting/rebasing/merging - for example if a > patch in another tree addes one more implementation that uses the old order, > we > can notice. > > If you don't like this, we can be careful and don't move opaque; or after a > short while, move opaque back in a separate commit (since Markus already sent > a > pull request).
I'm prepared to NAK my pull request if we think we need more time to discuss the patches.
