[libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/5] storage: util: Add boolean differentiating between gluster lookup type
Andrea Bolognani
abologna at redhat.com
Mon Apr 3 14:02:11 UTC 2017
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 17:12 +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> The native gluster pool source list data differs from the data used for
> attaching gluster volumes as
netfs pools. Currently the only difference
> was the format. Since native pools don't use it and later there will be
> more difference add a boolean to swithc
between the types instead.
s/difference/differences/
s/swithc/switch/
[...]
> @@ -2839,18 +2839,21 @@ virStorageBackendDeleteLocal(virConnectPtr conn ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> /**
> * virStorageBackendFindGlusterPoolSources:
> * @host: host to detect volumes on
> - * @pooltype: src->format is set to this value
> * @list: list of storage pool sources to be filled
> + * @netfs: lookup will be used with netfs pools
> * @report: report error if the 'gluster' cli tool is missing
> *
> * Looks up gluster volumes on @host and fills them to @list.
> *
> + * If @netfs is specified the data is tweaked so that it can be used with netfs
> + * type pools. Otherwise the data is for use with native gluster pools.
> + *
> * Returns number of volumes on the host on success, or -1 on error.
> */
> int
> virStorageBackendFindGlusterPoolSources(const char *host,
> - int pooltype,
> virStoragePoolSourceListPtr list,
> + bool netfs,
I suggest using virStoragePoolType instead of bool here, eg.
callers will pass either VIR_STORAGE_POOL_GLUSTER for native
gluster pools or VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS for netfs pools.
Passing any other value in the enumeration would of course
result in an error.
This would make the calling sites less opaque.
[...]
> @@ -2918,7 +2921,8 @@ virStorageBackendFindGlusterPoolSources(const char *host,
> if (VIR_STRDUP(src->hosts[0].name, host) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
>
> - src->format = pooltype;
> + if (netfs)
> + src->format = VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS_GLUSTERFS;
In patch 5/5 you're going to move this chunk of code earlier
in the function while changing it: I suggest you move it in
this patch instead, so there's only a single code motion
instead of two.
ACK with the above suggestions addressed, or if you manage
to convince me that they're best left unaddressed :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list