On 03/21/2011 10:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
* src/remote/remote_protocol.x: Define wire protocol
* daemon/remote.c, src/remote/remote_driver.c: Add new
functions for virDomainMigrateSetSpeed API
* src/remote/remote_protocol.c, src/remote/remote_protocol.h,
daemon/remote_dispatch_args.h, daemon/remote_dispatch_prototypes.h,
daemon/remote_dispatch_table.h: Re-generate files
---
daemon/remote.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daemon/remote_dispatch_args.h | 1 +
daemon/remote_dispatch_prototypes.h | 8 ++++++++
daemon/remote_dispatch_table.h | 5 +++++
src/remote/remote_driver.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
src/remote/remote_protocol.c | 13 +++++++++++++
src/remote/remote_protocol.h | 10 ++++++++++
src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 9 ++++++++-
8 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
No change to src/remote_protocol-structs (make check should have caught
that, if you have 'dwarves' installed)? Also, that file has a pending
unreviewed patch from me that might conflict, depending on who pushes first:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-March/msg00519.html
+++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
@@ -1760,6 +1760,12 @@ struct remote_domain_migrate_set_max_downtime_args {
unsigned flags;
};
+struct remote_domain_migrate_set_max_speed_args {
+ remote_nonnull_domain dom;
+ unsigned hyper bandwidth;
+ unsigned flags;
+};
Do we really need 'unsigned long' in patch 1 and 'hyper' here? Given
that the argument is provided in units of Mbps, wouldn't 'int' be
sufficient? However, this accurately reflects patch 1, so a change here
would also require a change in patch 1.
ACK with the nits addressed.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org