On 9/2/2016 9:18 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 06:22:25AM +0200, Xian Han Yu wrote:
The 'multi' element in PCI address struct used as 'virTristateSwitch',
and its default value is 'VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT'. Current PCI
process use 'false' to initialization 'multi',
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 06:22:25AM +0200, Xian Han Yu wrote:
The 'multi' element in PCI address struct used as 'virTristateSwitch',
and its default value is 'VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT'. Current PCI
process use 'false' to initialization 'multi', which is ambiguously
for assignment or comparison.
Ping
On 8/15/2016 12:22 PM, Xian Han Yu wrote:
The 'multi' element in PCI address struct used as 'virTristateSwitch',
and its default value is 'VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT'. Current PCI
process use 'false' to initialization 'multi', which is ambiguously
for assignment or comparison. This patch
Ping...
On 8/15/2016 12:22 PM, Xian Han Yu wrote:
The 'multi' element in PCI address struct used as 'virTristateSwitch',
and its default value is 'VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT'. Current PCI
process use 'false' to initialization 'multi', which is ambiguously
for assignment or comparison. This
The 'multi' element in PCI address struct used as 'virTristateSwitch',
and its default value is 'VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT'. Current PCI
process use 'false' to initialization 'multi', which is ambiguously
for assignment or comparison. This patch use '{0}' to initialize
the whole PCI address
On 8/11/2016 9:54 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:46:28AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:39:06PM +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:00 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:46:28AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:39:06PM +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:00 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:39:06PM +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/2016 5:00 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
> > > > > The default is not OFF, though, it's
On 8/11/2016 5:00 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
The default is not OFF, though, it's ABSENT :)
In fact, as far as I can tell, OFF isn't ever used explicitly
either for
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
> > > The default is not OFF, though, it's ABSENT :)
> > >
> > > In fact, as far as I can tell, OFF isn't ever used explicitly
> > > either for assignment or comparison. And
On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:48 +0800, Xian Han Yu wrote:
> > The default is not OFF, though, it's ABSENT :)
> >
> > In fact, as far as I can tell, OFF isn't ever used explicitly
> > either for assignment or comparison. And false is plain wrong
> > from a datatype point of view.
>
> How about we
On 8/10/2016 11:34 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 17:16 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
-virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
Honestly, I have no idea
On 08/10/2016 11:34 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 17:16 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
-virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
Honestly, I have no idea what
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 17:16 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> > > > for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
> > > > -virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> > > > +virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
> > >
> > > Honestly, I have no idea what preferences we
On 08/09/2016 11:25 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:19 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
-virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
Honestly, I have no idea what
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:19 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
> > -virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> > +virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
>
> Honestly, I have no idea what preferences we have for such
>
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Xian Han Yu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Xian Han Yu
---
You could've been more descriptive in the commit message. Like
describing what's the reason for this change? Just to initialize bool
to 'false' instead 0? Is there
Signed-off-by: Xian Han Yu
---
src/conf/node_device_conf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
index a23d8ef..96fdb6f 100644
--- a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
+++
18 matches
Mail list logo