On 09/19/2017 02:39 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 03:08 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>> Consider this round 1 of 2 The next series will be 18 patches,
>> but the majority of those deal with change every {pool|obj}->def->X
>> to use the accessor virStoragePoolObjGetDef.
>>
>> v1: https
On 08/24/2017 03:08 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
> Consider this round 1 of 2 The next series will be 18 patches,
> but the majority of those deal with change every {pool|obj}->def->X
> to use the accessor virStoragePoolObjGetDef.
>
> v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-May/msg00218
ping?
Would be nice to make a bit more progress here.
Tks,
John
On 08/24/2017 09:08 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> Consider this round 1 of 2 The next series will be 18 patches,
> but the majority of those deal with change every {pool|obj}->def->X
> to use the accessor virStoragePoolObjGetDef.
>
Consider this round 1 of 2 The next series will be 18 patches,
but the majority of those deal with change every {pool|obj}->def->X
to use the accessor virStoragePoolObjGetDef.
v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-May/msg00218.html
Probably not even worth looking at the v1, but