9:45 p.m.
From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
---
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
--- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
+++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
@@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs
*os)
return devices;
}
+const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
+{
+ return gvir_config_object_get_attribute(GVIR_CONFIG_OBJECT(os),
+ "type",
+ "arch");
+}
+
void gvir_config_domain_os_set_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os, const char *arch)
{
xmlNodePtr os_node;
diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h
index 832e275..62c1fbe 100644
--- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h
+++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ GVirConfigDomainOs *gvir_config_domain_os_new(void);
GVirConfigDomainOs *gvir_config_domain_os_new_from_xml(const gchar *xml, GError
**error);
void gvir_config_domain_os_set_os_type(GVirConfigDomainOs *os, GVirConfigDomainOsType
type);
+const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os);
void gvir_config_domain_os_set_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os, const char *arch);
GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os);
void gvir_config_domain_os_set_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os, GList
*boot_devices);
diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym
index 6fd2ef2..11c01f1 100644
--- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym
+++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym
@@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ LIBVIRT_GCONFIG_0.0.9 {
gvir_config_domain_get_os;
gvir_config_domain_get_virt_type;
+ gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch;
gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices;
gvir_config_capabilities_get_host;
--
1.7.7.6
7:13 a.m.
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
---
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
--- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
+++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
@@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs
*os)
return devices;
}
+const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
+{
g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
or would it be better to return something else?
Christophe
11:06 a.m.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
wrote:
> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
>
> ---
> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
> --- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> +++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs
*os)
> return devices;
> }
>
> +const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
> +{
g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
or would it be better to return something else?
I'm not very sure about returing default values in general since thats
very much a policy decision and we are not giving any clue to the app
that we are making the decision for it. Just saying I'm not sure, not
that I actually have a strong opinion either way.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
11:14 a.m.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:06:32PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau
<cfergeau(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
>>
>> ---
>> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
>> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
>> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
>> --- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> +++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList
*gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
>> return devices;
>> }
>>
>> +const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
>> +{
>
> g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
>
> ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
> or would it be better to return something else?
I'm not very sure about returing default values in general since thats
very much a policy decision and we are not giving any clue to the app
that we are making the decision for it. Just saying I'm not sure, not
that I actually have a strong opinion either way.
Returning NULL is the right thing todo IMHO, otherwise as apps read &
update the XML new attributes/elements will unneccessarily get added
to the doc.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
8:17 a.m.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:06:32PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
> >> --- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> +++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList
*gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
> >> return devices;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
> >> +{
> >
> > g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
> >
> > ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
> > or would it be better to return something else?
>
> I'm not very sure about returing default values in general since thats
> very much a policy decision and we are not giving any clue to the app
> that we are making the decision for it. Just saying I'm not sure, not
> that I actually have a strong opinion either way.
Returning NULL is the right thing todo IMHO, otherwise as apps read &
update the XML new attributes/elements will unneccessarily get added
to the doc.
Good point but doesn't this also apply to all enum props as well?
Currently all enum getters return a default value. Maybe we should
have a _NONE value added to all those enums and return that when no
value is set? Don't know what to do with uint* though except returning
0 or one of the G_MAXUINT* depending on the getter in question? Having
said that, we don't have any getters from uint* yet AFAICT.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
4567
days inactive
4570
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Christophe Fergeau -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)