[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] fix build erro when building with --without-libvirtd



On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:25:48PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 09:23 AM, Hu Tao wrote:
> > ---
> >  src/driver.h           |  4 ---
> >  src/libvirt.c          | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  src/libvirt_internal.h |  2 --
> >  3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/driver.h b/src/driver.h
> > index 02ddd83..dab7495 100644
> > --- a/src/driver.h
> > +++ b/src/driver.h
> > @@ -1512,7 +1512,6 @@ struct _virStorageDriver {
> >      virDrvStoragePoolIsPersistent           poolIsPersistent;
> >  };
> >  
> > -# ifdef WITH_LIBVIRTD
> >  
> >  typedef int (*virDrvStateInitialize) (bool privileged,
> >                                        virStateInhibitCallback callback,
> > @@ -1531,7 +1530,6 @@ struct _virStateDriver {
> >      virDrvStateReload      reload;
> >      virDrvStateStop        stop;
> >  };
> > -# endif
> 
> Even though this is a solution and it makes the calls to virState* never
> fail during compilation, I see the other approach being used as well in
> some files (xen _driver.c for example):
> 
> #ifdef WITH_LIBVIRTD
>     if (virRegisterStateDriver(&state_driver) == -1) return -1;
> #endif
> 
> I like this a bit more, but that's just a subjective opinion.  However,
> if you go with your approach, I'd rather see it cleaning up those paths
> as well.

See. Thanks for review.

-- 
Regards,
Hu Tao


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]