On 2/4/20 11:08 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
Sparse commit message - is the intent that this is no semantic change
and just adding a parameter?
---
block.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
block/backup-top.c | 3 ++-
block/blkdebug.c | 5 +++--
block/blklogwrites.c | 9 +++++----
block/commit.c | 1 +
block/copy-on-read.c | 1 +
block/mirror.c | 1 +
block/quorum.c | 1 +
block/replication.c | 1 +
block/vvfat.c | 1 +
include/block/block_int.h | 5 ++++-
tests/test-bdrv-drain.c | 5 +++--
tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 1 +
13 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index c576377650..7fa7830428 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -1764,12 +1764,12 @@ bool bdrv_is_writable(BlockDriverState *bs)
static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs,
BdrvChild *c, const BdrvChildClass *child_class,
- BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
+ BdrvChildRole role, BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
Again, using an enum name where a bitmask of non-enum values is
self-documenting, but somewhat abusive of C's loose type system. Is an
unsigned int any better?
Looks mechanical enough. I'd like a better commit message, but:
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
