On 03.01.2017 19:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > When integrating the crypto support with qcow/qcow2, we don't > want to use the bare LUKS option names "hash-alg", "key-secret", > etc. We want to namespace them "luks-hash-alg", "luks-key-secret" > so that they don't clash with any general qcow options at a later > date. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > --- > block/crypto.c | 110 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > block/crypto.h | 42 +++++++++++----------- > 2 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/crypto.c b/block/crypto.c > index d281de6..1037c70 100644 > --- a/block/crypto.c > +++ b/block/crypto.c
[...]
> +static int block_crypto_copy_value(void *opaque, const char *name,
> + const char *value, Error **errp)
> +{
> + struct BlockCryptoCopyData *data = opaque;
> +
> + if (g_str_has_prefix(name, data->prefix)) {
> + Error *local_err = NULL;
> + const char *newname = name + strlen(data->prefix);
strstart() would be shorter:
const char *newname;
if (strstart(name, data->prefix, &newname)) {
/* ... */
}
> +
> + qemu_opt_set(data->opts, newname, value, &local_err);
> + if (local_err) {
> + error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> + return 1;
I'd prefer -1, because 0/1 looks more like false/true to me, which in
turn looks like failure/success.
Both optional suggestions, so either way:
Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
[...]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
