Any opinions on what this code was supposed to be doing? I fixed it in
the patch (now in CVS) by commenting out the extra boot_dev parameters -
wasn't sure if they should be deleted altogether.
@@ -418,11 +418,11 @@
if (boot_dev) {
if (xmlStrEqual(boot_dev, BAD_CAST "fd")) {
- virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot a)", (const char *) boot_dev);
+ virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot a)" /*, (const char *)
boot_dev*/);
} else if (xmlStrEqual(boot_dev, BAD_CAST "cdrom")) {
- virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot d)", (const char *) boot_dev);
+ virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot d)" /*, (const char *)
boot_dev*/);
} else if (xmlStrEqual(boot_dev, BAD_CAST "hd")) {
- virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot c)", (const char *) boot_dev);
+ virBufferVSprintf(buf, "(boot c)" /*, (const char *)
boot_dev*/);
} else {
/* Any other type of boot dev is unsupported right now */
virXMLError(conn, VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, NULL, 0);
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF Mobile: +44 7866 314 421
"[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations
and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively
obvious and simple" (Francis Maseres FRS, mathematician, 1759)