On 2014-11-25 at 20:57, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/24/2014 02:43 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
When using a relative backing file name, qemu needs to know the
directory of the top image file. For JSON filenames, such a directory
cannot be easily determined (e.g. how do you determine the directory of
a qcow2 BDS directly on top of a quorum BDS?). Therefore, do not allow
relative filenames for the backing file of BDSs only having a JSON
filename.
Furthermore, BDS::exact_filename should be used whenever possible. If
BDS::filename is not equal to BDS::exact_filename, the former will
always be a JSON object.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
---
block.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
block/qapi.c | 7 ++++++-
include/block/block.h | 5 +++--
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index 0c1be37..a0cddcd 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -305,19 +305,28 @@ void path_combine(char *dest, int dest_size,
void bdrv_get_full_backing_filename_from_filename(const char *backed,
const char *backing,
- char *dest, size_t sz)
+ char *dest, size_t sz,
+ Error **errp)
{
- if (backing[0] == '\0' || path_has_protocol(backing)) {
+ if (backing[0] == '\0' || path_has_protocol(backing) ||
+ path_is_absolute(backing))
+ {
checkpatch.pl didn't complain about this? The { should be on the
previous line. With that fixed,
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
Oh, actually it does.
But there's no rule about that in CODING_STYLE. There is a rule about {
being on the same line as the if, though ("The opening brace is on the
line that contains the control
flow statement that introduces the new block"). With the condition split
over multiple lines, that is no longer possible; therefore, we can place
{ anywhere we want.
I always place { on the following line for multi-line conditions because
I find that more readable[1]; maybe I'll change my mind in a year or
two, but for now there is no rule about this case and I always do it
this way; so far, nobody complained. :-)
[1] I don't like the following:
if (foo0() || foo1() || foo2() || foo3() ||
bar0() || bar1() || bar2() || bar3()) {
baz();
Because in my eyes it looks like baz() may be part of the condition list
at first glance (because it is indented just as much as the last line of
the condition list).
Max
