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

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH] RFC: lvm2app: Add thin and thin pool lv creation

Dne 3.5.2013 00:24, Tony Asleson napsal(a):
On 05/02/2013 06:13 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 29.4.2013 21:20, Tony Asleson napsal(a):
+lv_create_params_t lvm_lv_params_create_thin(const vg_t vg, const
char *pool_name,
+                                    const char *lvname, uint64_t size)

Hmmm - here the vg doesn't remain unmodified - we use it's memory pool
for lvcp - so I'd prefer to use it here without 'const'

In this case having the const or not actually doesn't matter to the
compiler as we have a typedef'd structure pointer and thus the const is
meaningless.  However, from a documentation standpoint I agree that the
const should be removed.

I'm actually thinking we should get rid of the typedef struct pointers
so that we can actually use const correctly and have it enforced by the
compiler.  However, this would break existing user code.

Yep, it's purely a hint for user, that passed object is being modified, as we are not in C++ :) there is not a really good way to enforce this on code level :)

+int lvm_lv_params_skip_zero_get(lv_create_params_t params)

add const for '_get()'

Yeah good idea, but again not enforced by the compiler unless we ditch
typedef struct pointer.  Which we can do for this newly created structure.

Any API test case ?

I had a simple little C program to try this code out, but I haven't
created a test case.  I wanted to see if this approach would be
acceptable to everyone before I go ahead and create the python bindings
and add this to the unit test case.

Zdenek, you appear good with this patch (except for a few minor
changes), how about everyone else?

I guess it's worth to try to commit this and see what happens.


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