On 04/11/2014 10:13 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> ACK
>>
>> I suppose the only
>> odd part I found was the comparison < VIR_STORAGE_TYPE_DIR - leaving
>> currently DIR, NETWORK, and VOLUME out of the comparison. My thoughts
>> went to what if something new comes along and what on earth was being
>
On 04/11/2014 08:46 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2014 12:21 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Thanks to the testsuite, I feel quite confident that this rewrite
>> still gives the same results for all cases except for one, and
>> I can make the argument that _that_ case was a pre-existing bug.
>>
On 04/11/2014 12:21 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Thanks to the testsuite, I feel quite confident that this rewrite
> still gives the same results for all cases except for one, and
> I can make the argument that _that_ case was a pre-existing bug.
> When looking up relative names, the lookup is suppose
Thanks to the testsuite, I feel quite confident that this rewrite
still gives the same results for all cases except for one, and
I can make the argument that _that_ case was a pre-existing bug.
When looking up relative names, the lookup is supposed to be
pegged to the directory that contains the pa
